9050 
B3 


UC-NRLF 


^C    31    DM^ 


© 

(30 

O 


Hr. 


ZONING 

By  EDWARD  M.  BASSETT,  Counsel 
of  the  Zoning  Committee  of  New  York 


A  compact  but  complete  handbook  of  Zoning  covering  the  story  of  the 
spread  of  this  movement,  the  reasons  for  zoning,  the  experiences  of  the 
various  zoned  cities,  the  correct  principles  and  best  practice,  the  legal 
pitfalls  and  a  selected  list  of  references.  The  author  was  Chairman  of 
the  first  of  all  the  Zoning  Commissions  (New  York  City) 

%e)>ised  1922 


National  Municipal  League 

261  Broadway  New  York  City 

m 

Technical  Pamphlet  Series  No.  5 


•     c       c     '  .c 


133 


W      V--' 


> ) , 


CONTENTS 

PAGE 

I.  Chaotic  conditions  in  unzoned  cities .'. 315 

II.  Protective  efforts  before  the  spread  of  zoning.- 317 

III.  What  is  zoning  and  how  does  it  protect 318 

IV.  How  to  obtain  a  zoning  plan  for  a  city  or  village 327 

V^.  Where  to  get  information 331 

VI.  Statement  of  principles  of  zoning  formulated  by  the  author 333 

VII.  Suggestions  for  forms  of  legislative  enactments- 334 

VIII.  Opinions  of  the  Courts 336 

IX.  Enabling  Acts _ _ 338 

X.  Bibliography  by  Miss  Theodora  Kimball- _ 338 


483313 


.<       <        C.J 

c  c    c 


ZONING 


I.       CHAOTIC   CONDITIONS   IN   UNZONED 
CITIES 

Ten  years  ago  in  every  large  city  of 
our  country  a  landowner  could  put  up 
a  building  to  any  height,  in  any  place, 
of  any  size,  and  use  it  to  any  purpose, 
regardless  of  how  much  it  hurt  his 
neighbors.  A  few  cities  had  passed 
ordinances  limiting  the  height  of  sky- 
scrapers, but  these  limits  were  subject 
to  easy  change  and  not  part  of  a  com- 
prehensive plan.  A  few  cities  limited 
the  height  of  apartment  houses  and 
did  not  allow  them  to  cover  the  entire 
lot.  In  many  cities  regulations  looking 
toward  zoning  were  practiced  or  at- 
tempted, but  they  were  usually  for 
chosen  sections  or  to  meet  local  emer- 
gencies. Building  laws,  apart  from 
those  applying  to  fire  limits,  treated  all 
parts  of  the  city  alike  whether  inside 
or  suburban,  whether  business  centers 
or  residential  outskirts.  By  and  large 
the  upbuilding  of  a  city  was  left  to  the 
whim  or  personal  profit  of  the  individ- 
ual builder  and  he  could  do  what  he 
wanted  to  with  his  own  land,  even  if  it 
hurt  the  city  or  the  neighborhood. 

Skyscrapers  would  be  built  to  un- 
necessary height,  their  cornices  pro- 
jecting into  the  street  and  shutting 
out  light  and  air.  The  lower  floors 
needed  artificial  light  in  the  daytime. 
Business  centers  instead  of  being  ra- 
tionally spread  out  were  intensively 
congested.  Transit  and  street  facilities 
were  overwhelmed.  In  some  of  the 
larger  cities  a  landowner  in  the  business 
district  was  almost  compelled  to  put 
up  a  skyscraper  because  if  he  put  up  a 
low  building,  his  next  neighbor  would 
put  up  a  higher  one  that  would  take 
advantage  of  his  light  and  air.  The 
first  skyscraper  that  went  up  in  a 
block  would  enjoy  high  rents  because 


of  its  outlook,  but  when  other  build- 
ings went  up  equally  high,  its  rents 
would  fall.  The  skyscraper  would 
usually  be  built  to  cover  the  entire  lot, 
with  its  windows  opening  on  other 
people's  land.  Some  eligible  lots  were 
hedged  in  by  skyscrapers  so  that  no 
profitable  buildings  could  be  erected 
upon  them  and  their  rightful  value  was 
stolen  by  their  skyscraper  neighbors. 
The  individual  landowner  could  not  be 
blamed  because  if  he  did  not  take  ad- 
vantage of  his  neighbor,  his  neighbor 
would  take  advantage  of  him.  Many 
owners  recognized  that  skyscrapers 
were  less  desirable  and  often  less  profit- 
able than  lower  buildings,  that  the  giv- 
ing up  of  valuable  space  to  gangs  of 
elevators  for  different  stories  lessened 
the  rentable  area  and  that  the  cost  of 
construction  per  cubic  foot  of  a  sky- 
scraper was  vastly  greater  than  of  a 
building  of  moderate  height.  Never- 
theless the  owner,  realizing  that  a  fairly 
low  building  in  the  intensive  district 
would  be  pocketed  by  skyscrapers, 
would  build  a  skyscraper  himself.  If  he 
left  any  of  his  lot  uncovered,  or  set 
back  the  upper  part  of  his  building,  his 
neighbor  would  take  entire  advantage 
of  it  instead  of  leaving  corresponding 
openings.  The  result  was  that  the  lack 
of  regulation  stimulated  each  owner  to 
build  in  the  most  hurtful  manner. 

In  residential  localities  high  apart- 
ments would  build  out  to  the  street 
line  and  their  windows  would  open  on 
the  grounds  of  private  residences.  A 
vacant  unrestricted  lot  in  a  high-class 
residential  district  had  a  high  exploi- 
tation value.  After  such  a  locality 
was  exploited  by  a  dozen  apartment 
houses,  the  owners  of  the  private  resi- 
dences would  begin  to  move  away. 
The  locality  would  become  depressed 


'516 


NATIONAL  MUNICIPAL  REVIEW  SUPPLEMENT 


and  the  apartment  houses  themselves 
would  sometimes  find  themselves  in  a 
blighted  district. 

Bright  business  streets  would  be  in- 
vaded by  factories.  When  the  factory 
use  began  to  predominate,  customers 
would  leave  the  localities,  rents  of 
stores  would  drop,  and  some  of  the 
most  eligible  business  centers  of  cities 
became  partly  deserted.  Fortunes 
were  lost  because  business  would  move 
away  from  the  locality  where  it  would 
naturally  remain  if  not  forced  out. 
Public  stables  and  more  latterly  public 
garages  would  enter  the  best  business 
and  residential  districts.  A  garage 
costing  ^25,000  might  cause  a  loss  of 
$100,000  in  the  surrounding  values. 
Garages  did  not  seek  the  industrial 
localities  but  would  crowd  into  the 
business  and  residential  districts  that 
they  would  hurt  the  most. 

Although  it  was  evident  that  a  grow- 
ing city  would  more  and  more  need  its 
vacant  suburbs  for  residential  pur- 
poses, sporadic  factories  were  free  to 
enter  these  open  places.  Sometimes 
nuisance  factories  would  go  out  half  a 
mile  from  the  city  in  an  open  area  in 
order  that  they  might  be  free  from 
complaints  of  smoke  and  fumes.  When 
the  city  built  out  toward  the  factory, 
the  residences  would  keep  at  a  dis- 
tance. The  factory  might  occupy  an 
acre  and  almost  ruin  a  hundred  acres. 
Pressure  of  taxes  and  interest  charges 
on  the  owners  of  this  blighted  district 
would  cause  them  to  sell  at  last  for 
cheap  and  poorly-built  houses  without 
the  introduction  of  proper  street  im- 
provements. 

Although  retail  stores  ought  to  go 
on  business  streets,  sometimes  a  drug- 
gist or  grocer  would  try  to  short-cir- 
cuit the  trade  by  leaving  the  business 
street  and  moving  to  a  residential  cor- 
ner. He  might  project  his  plate-glass 
front  to  the  street  line,  cutting  off  the 


frontages  of  the  houses  in  the  block  that 
had  been  built  with  a  uniform  set-back. 
If  the  first  comer  was  successful  in  his 
business,  others  were  attracted,  and 
soon  the  residential  section  was  shot 
through  with  the  unnecessary  business 
buildings.  This  hurt  the  car-line  street 
where  the  business  ought  to  be,  and  it 
hurt  the  residential  district  where  the 
business  ought  not  to  be. 

In    the    great    cities    especially   this 
danger    of    invasion    of    hurtful    uses 
drove   well-to-do   families   out   of  the 
city,  where  in  suburban  villages  they 
could  to  a  greater  extent  obtain  pro- 
tected surroundings.      Citizens  whose 
financial  ability  and  public  enterprise 
made   them   most    helpful   within   the 
city   limits   were   the   very    ones   that 
would    often    be   tempted    to    remove 
their    families    outside    of    the    city. 
Thousands  of  the  best  business  men 
would  earn  their  livelihood  in  the  big 
city,  but  would  give  their  money  and 
energy  to  the  creating  of  healthful  liv- 
ing  conditions    in    a    suburban   town. 
This   helped  to  create   a  city  of   fac- 
tories and  tenement  houses  instead  of  a 
city  of  homes  with  needed  open  places. 
A  man  who  built  a  $40,000  home  in 
most  of  our  large  cities  was  considered 
highly    speculative   because   in   a    few 
years    he    might    have    an    apartment 
house  on  one  side  and  a  factory  on  the 
other.      No  kind  of  building  was  im- 
mune from  harm.      Business  districts 
were  invaded  by  factories,  apartment 
house  districts  by  sweat  shops,  junk 
shops  and  garages,  private  house  dis- 
tricts by  apartment  houses,  and  vacant 
suburban  areas  by  the  sporadic  chemi- 
cal  or   metal   factory.      There   was    a 
succession  of  invasive  uses  for  which 
the  buildings  already  erected  were  not 
adapted.      Sometimes   a   blighted   dis- 
trict  ensued.      In   any  case  buildings 
could  not  be  used  for  their  normal  life 
for  the  purposes  for  which  they  were 


ZONING 


317 


designed.  Waste  on  a  large  scale  was 
inevitable.  Sometimes  buildings  that 
had  a  normal  life  of  eighty  years  were 
torn  down  within  fifteen  years  and  re- 
placed by  a  different  kind. 

Not  only  were  private  owners  in- 
jured but  the  city  itself  became  less 
attractive  to  industrial  enterprises,  busi- 
ness men  and  home  owners.  Chaotic 
conditions  caused  workers  to  travel 
daily  too  far  from  home.  The  cost  of 
rapid  transit  lines  over  and  under 
ground  was  increased.  Street  widths 
and  sizes  of  blocks  could  not  be  pre- 
determined. Expensive  street  improve- 
ments, consisting  entirely  of  altera- 
tions, became  successively  necessary. 
For  these  reasons  the  city  was  not  as 
economically  sound  as  it  would  be  if 
through  community  action  it  could 
have  kept  its  house  in  order. 

II.   PROTECTIVE  EFFORTS  BEFORE  THE 
SPREAD  OF  ZONING 

But  one  will  say,  "Could  not  all 
of  these  injurious  effects  have  been 
prevented  by  private  restrictions  in 
deeds?"  The  history  of  private  re- 
strictions has  been  far  from  satisfac- 
tory. They  have  operated  fairly  well 
in  residential  developments  but  have 
almost  never  been  resorted  to  for  the 
regulation  of  skyscrapers,  to  prevent 
the  invasion  of  industry  in  business 
localities  or  to  stabilize  large  land 
areas,  different  parts  of  which  can  prop- 
erly be  put  to  different  uses.  When 
localities  are  built  up  without  contract- 
ual restrictions  it  is  always  too  late 
to  impose  them  because  private  owners 
can  never  agree  after  their  buildings  are 
once  erected.  Efforts  are  frequently 
made  but  a  small  minority  can  usually 
upset  the  best  laid  plan.  Even  in 
private  residential  developments  the 
beneficial  effect  of  private  restrictions 
is  apt  to  be  short-lived.  Usually  these 
restrictions  are  for  a  period  of  twenty 


or  twenty-five  years.  In  that  time 
three-fourths  of  the  lots  are  built  upon 
with  a  uniform  class  of  residences.  As 
the  time  expires,  owners  begin  to  keep 
their  lots,  especially  vacant  corner  lots, 
out  of  improvement  so  that  on  the 
lapse  of  the  restrictions  they  may  erect 
apartment  houses  and  thus  exploit  the 
private  home  surroundings.  Some- 
times during  this  period  home  owners 
will  allow  their  houses  to  run  down  so 
that  they  will  be  almost  valueless  when 
the  restrictions  expire,  and  they  can 
then  use  their  land  without  great  loss 
for  apartment  houses  or  business  places. 
Home  owners  in  such  localities  must  be 
alert  to  go  to  court  at  the  slightest 
violation  of  the  restrictions,  otherwise 
the  courts  will  hold  that  the  restric- 
tions have  become  inoperative  through 
laches.  Often  the  restrictions  are  badly 
drawn  and  show  lack  of  foresight. 
Then  litigations  are  sure  to  ensue.  In 
any  case  such  restrictions  have  little 
effect  on  the  upbuilding  of  a  city  that 
is  to  continue  a  center  of  population  for 
centuries.  If  the  restrictions  are  per- 
petual, they  are  still  more  troublesome. 
After  the  lapse  of  a  long  time  they  are 
difficult  to  alter  because  some  owners 
deriving  their  title  from  a  common 
source  will  not  sign  releases.  The 
courts  are  prone  to  say  that  the  re- 
strictions have  expired  by  lapsing  on 
account  of  a  change  in  the  character  of 
the  neighborhood.  Perpetual  restric- 
tions have  proven  more  harmful  than 
those  for  a  fixed  period.  Contractual 
restrictions  have  been  of  great  service 
in  all  cities  and  they  will  continue  to  be. 
They  cannot,  however,  be  looked  upon 
as  affording  sufficient  or  long-time 
protection  from  an  all-city  point  of 
view.  They  are  incapable  of  adapta- 
tion to  the  changing  needs  of  the  city. 
They  sometimes  stand  in  the  way  of 
normal  and  natural  improvements. 
Some  cities  have  given  large  powers 


318             NATIONAL  MUNICIPAL  REVIEW  SUPPLEMENT 

to  official  boards  or  department  heads  very  little  effect  in  bringing  about  the 

to  prohibit  offensive  uses  of  buildings  orderly  upbuilding  of  the  entire  city. 

or  to  cause  them  to  be  placed  in  suit-  And  even  this  field  which  might  be  left 

able  localities.     At  the  best  this  is  a  to  the  discretion  of  officials  is  apt  to 

substitution  of  the  rule  of  man  for  the  become  a  matter  of  favor  or  punish- 

rule  of  law  and  is  apt  to  result  in  play-  ment. 

ing  favorites.  The  method  is  not  Uniform  building  laws  do  not  bring 
legally  sound  except  as  to  uses  of  a  about  the  orderly  condition  desired, 
nuisance  character,  and  many  cities  They  do  not  recognize  that  heights  of 
are  sure  to  be  disappointed  before  long  buildings  which  may  be  permitted  in 
in  finding  that  the  courts  will  not  up-  the  intensively  used  parts  of  the  city 
hold  an  enlargement  of  the  unregulated  should  not  prevail  in  the  suburbs, 
freedom  of  officials  in  prohibiting  cer-  They  do  not  recognize  that  stores 
tain  buildings  in  one  place  and  allow-  which  may  be  built  on  car-line  streets 
ing  them  in  another.  A  landowner  should  not  be  built  promiscuously 
who  offers  his  plan  to  a  building  de-  among  homes.  They  do  not  recognize 
partment  for  a  building  not  objection-  that  a  lot  can  be  more  appropriately 
able  as  a  nuisance  can  in  such  a  city  built  upon  to  the  extent  of  90  per  cent 
practically  always  obtain  a  mandamus  in  the  business  districts  than  in  the 
order  against  the  building  superin-  suburbs.  In  other  words  they  apply 
tendent  commanding  him  to  file  the  uniformly  over  the  entire  city.  The 
plan  and  issue  the  permit.  Some-  usefulness  of  zoning  regulations  con- 
times  cities  seek  to  apply  specific  reg-  sists  in  their  being  different  for  differ- 
ulations  to  parts  of  their  area,  leaving  ent  districts.  Regulations  commonly 
other  areas  without  such  regulation,  classed  as  fire  limits  are  a  simple  form 
This  is  equally  apt  to  meet  the  disap-  of  zoning  which  has  been  employed  for 
proval  of  the  courts,  for  all  property  a  long  time  by  many  cities, 
situated  substantially  similarly  should 

be  treated  alike.  Public  garages  afford  "i-  what  is  zoning  and  how  does  it 
a  good  example  of  the  kind  of  building  protect. 
left  to  officials  to  locate  on  application.  A  zone  is  a  belt.  Medieval  walled 
While  a  public  garage  partakes  of  a  towns  in  Europe  were  somewhat  circu- 
nuisance  character  and  is  generally  rec-  lar  in  form.  When  they  outgrew  their 
ognized  as  coming  within  such  control,  walls,  especially  in  the  case  of  large 
nevertheless  it  almost  always  happens  cities,  the  location  of  the  walls  would 
that  there  is  a  tendency  to  employ  in-  be  made  into  public  parks  or  circular 
fluence  in  the  obtaining  of  permits,  boulevards,  and  outside  of  the  former 
Garages  are  a  public  necessity.  Every  walls  the  land  would  be  laid  out  in 
city  should  have  numerous  spots  where  belts,  sometimes  restricted  to  different 
public  garages  can  be  built  without  the  classes  of  residences.  These  were  called 
permit  being  a  matter  of  favor.  It  is  belts  or  zones.  The  term  zoning,  there- 
well  settled  that  nuisances  can  be  seg-  fore,  does  not  apply  strictly  in  our  cities 
regated.  Slaughter  houses  can  be  com-  where  the  different  districts  assume  all 
pelled  to  go  into  assigned  localities,  sorts  of  forms,  although  in  general 
The  trouble  is  that  the  power  to  segre-  there  is  a  recognition  of  intensive  use 
gate  slaughter  houses  and  the  very  lim-  in  the  center  of  the  city  surrounded  by 
ited  power  of  public  officials  to  locate  belts  of  greater  distribution  as  one  goes 
garages  and  other  quasi-nuisances  has  toward  the  edge  of  a  city.     The  crea- 


ZONING 


319 


tlon  of  different  districts,  accompanied 
by  the  application  of  different  regula- 
tions, was  five  years  ago  called  district- 
ing, but  this  word  was  so  apt  to  be  con- 
fused with  political  districts  that  public 
favor  caught  and  used  the  word  zoning, 
until  now  the  zoning  of  a  city  is  com- 
monly understood  to  be  the  creation  of 
different  districts  for  different  pur- 
poses, and  for  different  kinds  of  build- 
ings. 

In  many  European  cities  zoning  in  a 
more  or  less  perfect  form  has  been 
practiced.  Those  countries  as  a  rule 
do  not  have  written  constitutions.  The 
law  pronounced  by  the  supreme  power 
is  final.  No  court  can  set  it  aside. 
Building  departments  in  cities  could  be 
instructed  to  accept  some  plans  and 
refuse  others  in  different  districts. 
Sometimes  a  uniform  architectural 
style  was  obtained  by  this  rather  arbi- 
trary control  of  building  departments. 
In  Bremen  a  medieval  appearance  has 
been  given  even  to  new  buildings  be- 
cause the  building  department  would 
refuse  plans  unless  of  a  certain  design. 
In  some  cities  industry  was  segregated 
in  localities  where  the  prevailing  winds 
would  take  the  smoke  away  from  the 
city.  Sometimes  these  regulations  are 
arbitrary  or  based  on  aesthetics.  The 
ease  with  which  they  could  be  enforced 
probably  prevented  the  adoption  of  a 
comprehensive  plan  with  the  details 
thoroughly  worked  out.  However  that 
may  be,  our  cities  have  found  a  com- 
prehensive zoning  plan  adapted  to 
states  whose  government  depends  on  a 
written  constitution,  and  where  the 
courts  can  set  aside  legislative  acts  as 
unconstitutional. 

For  a  long  time  people  supposed  that 
zoning  was  impossible  in  our  cities  as 
contrary  to  our  written  constitutions. 
This  impression  was  wrong.  The  courts 
had  said  nothing  to  warrant  this  im- 
pression.    On  the  contrary  the  courts 


had  repeatedly  put  themselves  in  line 
with  sensible  zoning  and  against  ar- 
bitrary zoning. 

The  chaotic  conditions  described  in 
the  early  part  of  this  article  were  due 
to  the  inability  of  the  individual  to  pro- 
tect himself.  The  power  of  the  com- 
munity was  the  only  safeguard  and  the 
community  had  not  discovered  how  to 
exercise  its  power.  Some  landowners 
did  not  consider  that  they  really  owned 
their  land  unless  they  were  free  to  do 
anything  and  everything  with  it  that 
was  possible.  Others  would  gladly 
treat  their  neighbors  fairly  if  they  had 
any  assurance  that  their  neighbors 
would  do  the  same.  The  truth  is  that 
no  man  can  make  the  best  use  of  his 
own  unless  his  neighbors  are  required 
to  make  such  use  of  their  own  as  not 
to  injure  others.  The  landowner  who 
is  free  to  put  up  a  skyscraper  covering 
100  per  cent  of  his  land,  and  opening 
his  windows  on  his  neighbor's  land, 
may  think  that  his  lO  per  cent  net 
earnings  are  a  justification  of  the  right- 
eousness of  unhampered  use  of  his  own 
property,  but  when  his  neighbors  put 
up  similar  buildings  and  his  rent  goes 
down  until  it  pays  barely  2  per  cent  on 
his  investment,  he  realizes  that  fair 
regulation  which  would  have  divided 
the  light  and  air  between  him  and  his 
neighbors  and  allowed  him  to  earn  a 
steady  7  per  cent  or  8  per  cent  on  his 
investment  would  be  best  for  him  in 
the  long  run. 

But  some  will  say,  "If  we  are  not 
allowed  to  do  as  we  choose  with  our 
own  property,  the  public  ought  to  pay 
us  our  damages."  It  is  a  fact,  how- 
ever, that  fair  regulations  compelling 
the  division  of  light  and  air  are  a  bene- 
fit to  both  owners.  One  owner  gives 
up  something  of  his  absolute  owner- 
ship and  use  and  in  return  he  receives 
something  from  his  neighbor. 

The  people  of  every  state  have  the 


320             NATIONAL  MUNICIPAL  REVIEW  SUPPLEMENT 

inherent   right   to    pass    laws    for   the  zoning  as  for  uniform  sanitary  and  fire 

public  safety,  health,  morals  and  gen-  protection    laws.      It    must,    however, 

eral  welfare.    Call  it  community  power  similarly  be  confined  within  the  limits 

or  police  power  —  the  meaning  is  the  recognized    by   the    courts.      That    is, 

same.    It  is  commonly  called  the  police  zoning  must  be  done  with  relation  to 

power,  which  is  something  of  a  mis-  the  public  health,  safety,  morals  and 

nomer   because  it   has   nothing   to  do  general  welfare.     If  it  is  done  arbitra- 

with  the  police.     If  we  think  of  police  rily  or  by  whim  or  for  aesthetics  or  for 

power  as   community   power,  we  will  purely   sentimental    purposes    or  with 

have  it  about  right.      It  is  that  power  unjust  discrimination,  the  courts   will 

which  the  state  employs  for  fire  pro-  not  uphold  it. 

tection,  for  sanitary  regulations  and  Although  the  police  power,  as  recog- 
for  preventing  the  spread  of  epidemics,  nized  by  the  courts  of  our  country. 
One  does  not  assert  that  the  public  adapts  itself  admirably  to  the  zoning 
must  pay  him  something  when  the  of  cities,  yet  many  cities  seem  to  think 
health  department  says  that  he  must  that  they  are  safer  in  employing  emi- 
be  vaccinated,  and  yet  he  is  giving  up  nent  domain.  The  exercise  of  eminent 
something  of  his  absolute  freedom.  His  domain  requires  that  property  or  rights 
compensation  is  that  he,  along  with  over  property  shall  be  taken  for  a  pub- 
all  of  his  neighbors,  is  protected  against  lie  use  and  that  just  compensation  shall 
the  spread  of  smallpox.  Fireproof  re-  be  made.  In  the  very  nature  of  the 
quirements,  plumbing  rules,  tenement  case  it  is  not  applicable  to  zoning  be- 
house  laws,  strength  of  construction  cause  zoning  should  cover  the  entire 
requirements,  all  come  within  the  po-  city,  not  merely  a  part.  It  is  for  the 
lice  power.  They  are  exercised  with-  benefit  of  all  private  owners,  and  is  not 
out  compensation  being  made  to  the  any  more  a  taking  for  public  use  than 
private  owner  subjected  to  regulation,  vaccination  is  a  taking  for  public  use. 
The  courts  rigorously  uphold  these  The  expense  of  appraisal  would  be 
laws  and  ordinances,  scrutinizing  them,  calamitous  and  the  spreading  of  assess- 
however,  to  see  that  they  are  related  ments  On  other  property  according  to 
to  health,  safety,  morals  and  the  gen-  benefit  would  be  impossible.  More- 
eral  welfare  of  the  community.  If  they  over,  a  vital  city  is  growing  and  chang- 
are  employed  merely  on  a  whim,  or  for  ing.  It  cannot  be  run  into  a  fixed 
aesthetics  or  some  sentimental  object,  mould  where  it  will  stay  forever.  Po- 
the  courts  will  not  support  them.  The  lice  power  zoning  can  be  altered  to  fit 
popular  notion,  and  to  some  extent  the  the  changing  needs  of  a  growing  city, 
official,  has  prevailed,  that  if  different  but  zoning  by  condemnation  would 
regulations  are  enforced  in  different  ossify  a  city.  Some  cities  after  mak- 
parts  of  the  city,  it  cannot  be  done  ing  a  mistake  in  zoning  and  receiving 
under  the  police  power  but  must  be  a  setback  from  the  courts,  think  they 
done  under  eminent  domain,  and  com-  must  have  a  constitutional  amendment 
pensation  must  be  made.  They  for-  permitting  zoning.  Constitutional 
get  that  the  health  and  safety  of  the  amendments  regarding  the  police  pow- 
community  may  require  different  regu-  er  should  be  avoided  unless  they  are 
lations  in  different  parts  of  the  city  be-  absolutely  necessary.  The  police  pow- 
cause  the  needs  of  diiferent  parts  of  er  residing  in  the  state  legislature 
the  city  are  different.  The  police  should  be  ample  for  zoning  if  zoning 
power  can   as   well  be  employed   for  is  done  wisely. 


ZONING 


321 


The  first  comprehensive  zoning  in 
the  United  States  was  done  in  Boston. 
A  building  height  of  80  feet  was  al- 
lowed on  some  main  thoroughfares  and 
a  limit  of  125  feet  was  imposed  on  new 
buildings  on  all  other  streets.  This 
ordinance  was  attacked  in  the  courts 
for  unconstitutionality,  but  was  upheld 
by  the  highest  court  of  Massachusetts 
and  was  affirmed  by  the  supreme  court 
of  the  United  States.  Los  Angeles  fol- 
lowed with  a  zoning  plan  which  di- 
vided the  city  into  residential  and  non- 
residential districts.  Under  this  ordi- 
nance, which  was  retroactive  in  form, 
the  city  authorities  ousted  a  brick  yard 
around  which  a  residential  district  had 
grown  up.  The  owner  of  the  brick 
yard  attacked  the  ordinance  on  the 
ground  of  unconstitutionality  but  the 
ordinance  was  upheld  both  by  the 
highest  court  of  California  and  by  the 
United  States  Supreme  Court.  Other 
cities  have  as  a  rule  considered  that  it 
is  unduly  harsh  to  make  a  zoning  law 
retroactive,  considering  that  existing 
uses  and  buildings  should  be  allowed  to 
continue  subject  to  certain  rules  which 
tend  gradually  to  make  them  conform 
to  the  requirements  of  the  district. 
New  York  was  the  first  city  to  work 
out  a  comprehensive  zoning  plan.  The 
first  step  after  four  years  of  prepara- 
tory study  was  to  obtain  the  passage 
of  a  legislative  enactment  granting  the 
police  power  of  the  state  to  the  city  for 
the  purpose  of  dividing  the  city  into 
districts  according  to  height,  bulk  and 
use  of  buildings  with  power  to  make 
appropriate  regulations  for  each  dis- 
trict and  with  a  provision  that  the 
regulations  might  differ  In  the  different 
districts.  The  ordinance  which  the 
city  adopted  under  this  law  is  supple- 
mented by  three  maps  of  the  entire 
city.  One  map  shows  a  set  of  dis- 
tricts laid  out  according  to  heights  al- 
lowable; another  shows  a  different  set 


of  districts  outlined  according  to  the 
area  of  the  lot  that  new  buildings 
therein  may  occupy;  the  last  map 
shows  districts  outlined  according  to 
allowable  uses  of  land  and  new  build- 
ings.    Other  cities  followed  rapidly. 

How  does  zoning  protect  in  actual 
practice?  In  general  It  stabilizes  build- 
ings and  values.  Most  of  all  it  con- 
serves the  future.  Zoning  does  not 
prohibit  existing  stores  in  residential 
localities  or  existing  apartment  houses 
In  private  home  localities  or  existing 
factories  In  business  localities.  It  reg- 
ulates new  buildings  and  changes  of 
uses.  Although  It  Is  possible  that  un- 
der the  Los  Angeles  case  zoning  could 
go  further  and  oust  Inappropriate 
buildings,  yet  it  Is  considered  unwise 
to  do  this  and  successful  zoning  en- 
deavors to  protect  investments  rather 
than  destroy  existing  property.  When 
one  considers  that  the  cities  of  our 
country  will  in  all  likelihood  continue 
as  centers  of  population  for  centuries, 
one  realizes  that  the  harm  already  done 
by  indiscriminate  building  is  of  small 
account  If  the  future  of  the  city  can  be 
protected. 

The  zoning  ordinances  and  maps 
differ  somewhat  In  the  different  cities 
that  have  adopted  zoning.  The  Inter- 
ested city  official  or  citizens'  organiza- 
tion should  obtain  copies  of  the  various 
ordinances  and  maps  which  every  city 
will  gladly  furnish  at  a  nominal  cost. 
The  reader  must  assume  that  the  zon- 
ing plan  described  In  this  chapter  will 
vary  In  its  details  In  different  cities. 
New  York,  for  instance,  allows  build- 
ings on  certain  broad  streets  In  the 
skyscraper  district  to  go  up  250  feet 
on  the  street  line  before  they  begin 
to  set  back.  Smaller  cities  do  not  al- 
low such  heights,  and  New  York  would 
not  have  done  so  If  existing  buildings 
of  great  height  had  not  made  it  im- 
possible to  adopt  a  more  sensible  limit. 


322 


NATIONAL  MUNICIPAL  REVIEW  SUPPLEMENT 


Limitations  for  new  buildings  vary  in 
the  different  districts,  a  higher  building 
being  allowable  in  the  intensively  used 
parts  of  the  city  than  in  the  outskirts. 
Usually    the    allowable    height    has    a 
relation   to   the    width    of   the    street. 
New  York  has  2^^,  2,  i^,  1^4  and  i 
times  height  districts.    This  means  that 
a  new  building  in  the  2  times  district 
can  be  built  to  a  height  on  the  street 
line  of  2  times  the  width  of  the  street. 
After  reaching  such  a  height  it  must 
begin  to  set  back  at  the  rate  of  i  foot 
for  every  4  feet  of  additional  height. 
If  a  street  is  broader  than  100  feet,  the 
building  is  not  allowed  any  additional 
height,  and  if  a  street  is  narrower  than 
50  feet  the  building  need  not  be  corre- 
spondingly lower  than  one  erected  on  a 
50  foot  street.     Towers  are  allowed  of 
an    unlimited    height,    and    steeples, 
chimneys  and  other  structures  defined 
in  the  ordinance  are  excepted  from  the 
height    regulations.      Towers,    in    the 
opinion  of  many,  afford  a  variety  in 
the  appearance  of  a  city  and  bring  an 
interest  which  the  city  would  otherwise 
lack.      Some    experienced    engineers 
maintain  that  allowable  heights  should 
not  be  related  to  street  widths.     The 
setbacks    required    after    the    building 
has  gone  to  the  allowable  height  on  the 
street  line  are  for  the  purpose  of  af- 
fording access  of  light  and  air  to  the 
street  itself.     Provisions   of  a   similar 
nature  apply  to  the  rear  of  such  build- 
ings. 

Height  regulations  therefore  not  only 
limit  height  of  new  buildings  but  in- 
sure a  fair  division  of  light  and  air 
among  lot  owners.  The  erection  of 
unnecessarily  high  skyscrapers  is  no 
longer  a  sign  of  city  progress  but  rather 
a  sign  of  city  ignorance.  Buildings  of 
moderate  height  broaden  out  a  business 
center.  Values  are  equalized  instead 
of  being  absorbed  by  a  few.  Office 
business  can  be  conducted  in  the  day- 


light instead  of  under  artificial  light. 
There  is  greater  convenience  and  econ- 
omy in  every  way.  One  would  say 
that  economic  reasons  would  sooner 
or  later  prevent  people  from  building 
skyscrapers.  But  every  little  while  a 
person  or  business  comes  along  who 
wants  to  advertise  itself  by  a  monu- 
ment even  if  the  earning  power  of  the 
building  is  very  small.  The  usual 
trouble  with  these  monuments  is  that 
they  hurt  their  neighbors. 

Not  less  important  in  the  height  reg- 
ulations are  the  provisions  for  divi- 
sion of  light  and  air  between  lot  own- 
ers. As  a  building  goes  higher  its  side 
courts  must  be  larger.  Details  for 
yards  and  inner  and  outer  courts 
should  be  examined  in  existing  ordi- 
nances. The  setbacks  help  to  create 
pyramidal  structures  which  leave  light 
and  air  for  their  neighbors. 

Height  regulations  alone,  however, 
are  not  enough  and  they  do  very  little 
to  prevent  congestion  where  land  val- 
ues are  low.  Just  as  lower  heights  may 
be  required  in  the  outlying  districts, 
so  it  is  practicable  to  prevent  building 
on  the  entire  lot  in  the  outlying  dis- 
tricts. Then,  too,  industrial  buildings 
and  warehouses  along  water-courses 
and  railroads  sometimes  are  lighted 
from  above  or  need  no  light  at  all. 
Such  buildings  can  properly  occupy  the 
entire  lot.  These  considerations  make 
it  necessary  to  employ  another  set  of 
regulations  commonly  called  area  reg- 
ulations. They  supplement  the  height 
regulations.  Districts  of  the  one  sort 
need  not  be  coterminous  with  districts 
of  the  other  sort  and  in  New  York  they 
are  not.  These  area  districts  in  New 
York  are  A,  B,  C,  D  and  E.  The  A 
districts  are  warehouse  and  industrial 
districts,  usually  along  watercourses  or 
railroads  or  land  which  for  one  reason 
or  another  is  best  adapted  to  storage 
and  industry.     Here  new  buildings  can 


ZONING 


333 


cover  100  per  cent  of  the  lot.  The 
other  extreme  is  the  E  district  adapted 
to  private  detached  residences,  where 
the  new  buildings  may  cover  not  over 
30  per  cent  of  the  lot.  B  districts  are 
adapted  to  the  large  office,  business, 
and  high  apartment  house  localities.  C 
districts  are  adapted  to  non-elevator 
apartment  houses,  and  D  districts  to 
one  and  two-family  private  residences 
in  blocks.  The  E  zones  of  New  York, 
or  zones  corresponding  to  them  in  other 
cities  that  have  adopted  zoning,  have 
been  considered  one  of  the  most  im- 
portant results  of  the  new  movement 
because  they  perpetuate  the  highly  re- 
stricted residential  developments.  In 
New  York  it  is  not  practical  to  put  up 
any  residential  building  on  30  per  cent 
of  the  lot  except  a  one-family  private 
residence.  Most  of  such  restricted 
areas  have  been  placed  in  E  zones  on 
the  petition  of  the  property  owners. 
They  are  so  popular  that  many  new  E 
zones  have  been  created.  It  was  at 
first  feared  by  some  that  land  in  these 
E  zones  would  be  less  valuable  because 
the  building  area  was  so  highly  re- 
stricted, but  it  turned  out  that  the 
protective  features  were  so  great  that 
the  supply  of  land  in  these  areas  could 
hardly  meet  the  demand.  In  some 
cases  where  restrictions  expired  or  were 
about  to  expire  the  E  zone  require- 
ments have  made  the  locality  better 
than  it  was  before.  Owners  of  vacant 
corner  lots,  that  had  been  held  out  of 
use  so  that  apartment  houses  might  be 
built,  have  in  almost  every  case  im- 
proved them  with  high-class  one-fam- 
ily residences.  In  such  districts  own- 
ers of  houses  instead  of  letting  them 
become  dilapidated  when  the  private 
restrictions  were  about  to  lapse  have 
improved  their  homes,  adding  private 
garages,  sun  parlors  and  substituting 
copper  for  tin.  These  E  districts  are 
preventing    well-to-do    citizens     from 


leaving  the  .city  to  settle  with  their 
families  in  outlying  villages  because 
they  offer  an  opportunity  for  villa 
homes  protected  against^  all  injurious 
buildings  for  an  unlimited  time.  In 
them  people  can  have  the  advantages 
of  open  surroundings  and  still  be  near 
their  business,  all  city  conveniences, 
and  have  the  benefit  of  low  car-fares. 

One  may  ask  why  they  are  called  E 
districts  instead  of  private  residential 
districts.  The  reason  is  that  the  meth- 
od of  creating  districts  graduating  from 
100  per  cent  to  30  per  cent  is  a  plain 
employment  of  the  police  power  with  a 
recognition  of  health  and  safety  con- 
siderations, and  the  courts  will  protect 
a  plan  which  is  based  on  such  a  foun- 
dation. In  New  York  at  least  it  pre- 
supposes that  an  apartment  house  cov- 
ering not  over  30  per  cent  of  the  lot 
would  be  substantially  as  safe  and 
healthful  as  a  one-family  house,  al- 
though as  a  matter  of  practice  land- 
owners in  E  districts  will  not  erect 
apartment  houses.  The  courts  will 
recognize  the  common  sense  of  bring- 
ing light  and  air  in  greater  abundance 
to  suburban  districts  where  children 
are  growing  up.  There  is  a  temptation 
in  cities  where  land  is  less  expensive  to 
create  one  family  house  districts  as  use 
districts.  This  has  sometimes  been 
done  under  the  apprehension  that  a 
30  per  cent  restriction  would  not  pre- 
vent the  two-family  or  apartment 
house.  Each  city  must  judge  for  itself 
whether  it  will  adopt  the  safe  course  of 
creating  E  districts  depending  on  the 
30  per  cent  limitation  preventing  hurt- 
ful buildings  or  whether  it  will  follow 
the  more  hazardous  course  of  consid- 
ering private  detached  residences  a 
separate  use.  The  reason  that  it  is 
hazardous  is  because  the  court  is  likely 
to  inquire  what  dangers  to  health  and 
safety  exist  in  two-family  houses,  each 
built  on   a   small   fraction  of  the   lot, 


324             NATIONAL  MUNICIPAL  REVIEW  SUPPLEMENT 

which  do  not  exist  in  one-family  houses  New  Jersey,  has  four  use  districts, — 

similarly  built.     Each  city  in  framing  heavy   industry,   light   industry,   busi- 

its  zoning  ordinance  and  maps   must  ness  and  residence;  and  excludes  new 

keep  in  mind. that  it  is  done  under  the  residences    from    the    heavy    industry 

police  power  and  that  the  requirements  districts  which  are  mainly  in  or  near 

must  have  a  relation  to  public  health,  the  salt  meadows.     Some  cities,  partic- 

safety,  morals  and  the  general  welfare,  ularly  on  the  Pacific  coast,  have  created 

The  courts  of  some  states  of  the  far  numerous  use  districts,  including  dis- 

West  are  undoubtedly  willing  to  recog-  tricts   for   private   residences,   districts 

nize  a  greater  scope  of  the  police  power  for  apartment  houses  and  districts  for 

than  those  of  some  of  the  more  con-  public  buildings.    In  the  opinion  of  the 

servative  Eastern  states.  author  use  districts  should  be  few  in 

Private  restrictions  can  continue  order  that  they  may  be  upheld  in  our 
along  with  zoning  regulations.  It  is  more  conservative  states.  Until  we 
undoubtedly  desirable  to  supplement  have  further  light  on  the  subject  from 
zoning  regulations  with  private  restric-  the  courts,  the  districts  should  be,  with 
tions  in  the  opening  of  new  develop-  the  possible  exception  of  peculiar  cir- 
ments  for  residences.  Inasmuch  as  cumstances,  heavy  industry,  light  in- 
private  restrictions  are  contractual  and  dustry,  business  and  residence, 
zoning  is  done  under  the  police  power.  Heavy  industry  districts  are  intended 
the  one  group  has  no  relation  to  or  for  industries  of  a  nuisance  character 
effect  upon  the  other.  Private  restric-  and  works  requiring  a  large  spread  of 
tions  cannot  be  copied  in  zoning.  They  yards  and  buildings.  If  these  districts 
rest  on  different  bases  and  are  enforced  can  be  decided  upon  before  or  simul- 
in  different  ways.  Private  restrictions  taneously  with  laying  out  streets,  the 
are  the  result  of  private  bargains,  blocks  should  be  made  larger  than  for 
Zoning  is  a  public  requirement  imposed  ordinary  residence  or  business.  They 
directly  or  indirectly  by  the  state.  will  usually  be  near  railroads  and  wa- 

Zoning  to  regulate  height  and  area  ter-courses.     Some  well-known  advis- 

would  be  only  a  partial  remedy.    If  the  ors  consider  that  residences  should  not 

protection   of  zoning   stopped    at   this  be  permitted  in  heavy  industry  zones, 

point,    factories,    garages,    stores    and  It  will  be  noticed  that  this  is  a  depar- 

residences  could  be  built  anywhere,  and  ture  from  the  general  rule.      In  New 

there  would  be  no  protection  against  York  new  stores  or  residences  may  be 

constant  injury.     Consequently  a  third  built  in  industrial  zones.      The  argu- 

class  of  regulations  is  necessary  con-  ment  for  the  exclusion  of  residences  is 

cerning  the  use  of  land  and  buildings  that  the  surroundings  are  unhealthful 
and  different  districts  must  be  created  _and   residences   in   such   locations   are 

to  separate  these  uses.     The  use  dis-  almost  sure  to  become  neglected  and 

tricts    need    not   correspond   with    the  unsanitary.     The  author,  however,   is 

height  or  area  districts  and  commonly  of  the  opinion  that,  if  the  land  is  suffi- 

do  not.     In  New  York  the  use  districts  cienfty  "high  for  drainage  and  cellars, 

are, — unrestricted,  in  which  residences  it  is  a  hardship  to  the  owner  to  be  de- 

and  business  as  well  as  factories  can  prived  of  using  his  land  for  residences, 

go;   business   districts,   in  which   resi-  The  residences  do  not  hurt  the  neigh- 

dences,  as  well  as  business  can  go;  and  boring   factories,   and   the  grounds   of 

residence   districts,   in  which   business  prohibition    cannot   be   based    on    the 

and  industry  are  excluded.     Newark,  maxim  that  one  should  so  use  his  own 


ZONING  325 

as  not  to  injure  another.  Sometimes  most  always  tend  to  become  business 
heavy  industrial  districts  must  be  laid  streets.  It  is  well  to  consider  this  in 
out  far  in  advance  of  use  and  it  would  zoning  localities  not  yet  built  up.  If 
seem  to  be  a  hardship)  to  require  an  small  retail  stores  and  shops  are  com- 
owner  to  pay  taxes  and  perhaps  hold  pelled  to  go  to  certain  localities,  they 
his  land  without  the  slightest  income  should  be  compelled  to  go  to  the  main 
awaiting  the  coming  of  a  heavy  Indus-  thoroughfares  and  car-line  streets, 
try  use.  Then,  too,  a  piece  of  land  in  a  How  often  it  has  happened  that  main 
heavy  industry  zone  might  be  too  thoroughfares  have  been  built  up  with 
small  for  a  factory  and  yet  be  sur-  splendid  homes  which  have  later  proved 
rounded  by  large  factories.  Surely  it  to  be  out  of  place.  Zoning  seeks  to 
is  a  hardship  to  prevent  the  owner  set  aside  streets  for  a  long  period  of 
from  making  use  of  it  for  that  purpose  fixed  usefulness.  This  object  is  best 
which  as  a  last  resort  a  man  can  attained  by  giving  privacy  to  private 
always  adopt,  i.e.,  for  small  homes,  homes.  If  five  or  six  stores  have  come 
Where  land  like  the  Newark  salt  into  a  block  of  residences  fronting  on  a 
meadows  is  too  low  for  drainage  or  street-car  line  or  a  main  thoroughfare, 
cellars,  the  case  is  somewhat  different,  it  is  likely  that  the  street  should  be  put 
Zoning,  however,  must  not  be  arbi-  in  a  business  district.  It  has  begun  to 
trary.  Regulation  becomes  arbitrary  show  its  normal  destiny  and  zoning  it 
when  it  prohibits  every  possible  use  of  as  a  residence  district  will  usually  not 
land  and  compels  the  owner  to  hold  it  save  the  residential  values  but  on  the 
in  idleness.  other  hand  will  hold  back  the  develop- 
Light  industry  zones  and  business  ment  of  normal  business  values, 
zones  are  self-explanatory.  Public  Residence  districts  should  allow dwell- 
garages  or  garages  for  more  than  three  ings,  clubs,  churches,  schools,  libraries, 
vehicles  should  be  permitted  in  these  hospitals,  railroad  passenger  stations, 
two  zones  only  on  special  permit  of  a  farm  buildings,  greenhouses  and  their 
board  of  appeals.  In  New  York  they  usual  accessories.  A  private  garage  as 
are  classed  among  heavy  industry.  A  an  accessory  to  a  home  constructed  for 
public  garage  may  be  as  hurtful  in  a  not  more  than  three  vehicles  should  be 
light  industry  district  as  in  a  business  allowed  in  a  residence  district.  Some 
district.  In  New  York  the  board  of  have  asserted  that  hospitals  and  sani- 
appeals  can  allow  a  new  garage  for  tariums  should  not  be  allowed  in  resi- 
more  than  five  vehicles  in  a  business  dence  districts  as  they  may  sometimes 
district  only  when  there  is  already  one  be  offensive.  The  question,  however, 
such  garage  in  the  street  between  two  arises  as  to  where  they  should  be 
intersecting  streets.  It  has  been  found  placed.  Surely  not  in  industrial  or 
that  light  industry  cannot  be  entirely  business  districts.  Bill-board  permits 
excluded  from  business  districts.  De-  are  not  issued  in  residence  districts  in 
partment  stores,  millinery  shops  and  New  York.  The  zoning  ordinance  has 
jewelry  stores  need  to  devote  a  part  of  proved  to  be  the  first  effective  control 
their  space  to  light  manufacture  and  of  this  subject,  recognizing  that  al- 
this  should  be  permitted  in  some  way.  though  bill-boards  may  be  proper  in 
In  New  York  it  is  provided  for  by  some  districts,  they  should  not  be  scat- 
allowing  one-quarter  of  the  store  space  tered  among  homes,  schools  and  church- 
to  be  used  for  light  industry.  Main  es.  It  should  here  be  said  that  there 
thoroughfares   and  car-line  streets  al-  is  a  natural  tendency  for  cities  of  medi- 


326 


NATIONAL  MUNICIPAL  REVIEW  SUPPLEMENT 


um  size  whose  nearby  areas  are  not 
congested  to  favor  the  control  of  dif- 
ferent kinds  of  residential  units  by  cre- 
ating one-family  house  districts,  two- 
family  house  districts  and  multi-fam- 
ily house  districts.  This  tendency  has 
recently  been  so  great  that  the  author 
hesitates  to  condemn  it.  Where  city 
officials  are  convinced  that  an  area 
limitation  will  not  produce  one  or  two 
family  houses  they  probably  must  take 
the  risk  of  the  courts'  approval  of  dis- 
tricting by  naming  the  number  of  fam- 
ilies. Where,  however,  conditions  are 
such  that  division  of  light  and  air  can 
be  provided  for  by  area  regulations  as 
has  been  done  in  New  York,  the  author 
is  of  the  opinion  that  the  recognized 
police  power  will  more  nearly  justify 
the  zoning. 

Before  adopting  any  specific  method 
of  regulation  the  enabling  act  should  be 
scrutinized  to  see  that  the  city  has  the 
necessary  power. 

Zoning  is  not  usually  retroactive. 
That  is,  the  height,  area  and  use  regu- 
lations prevent  city  building  depart- 
ments from  issuing  permits  to  new 
buildings  which  do  not  conform  to  the 
zoning  requirements.  But  after  a 
zoning  plan  is  adopted  old  factories 
will  be  found  in  residence  and  business 
districts,  and  stores  will  be  found  in 
residence  districts.  What  shall  be  done 
with  these  non-conforming  buildings? 
It  would  be  a  great  hardship  to  the 
owners  to  compel  them  to  alter  them 
at  once  to  conform  with  the  require- 
ments of  the  district.  The  zoning 
ordinance  therefore  must  provide  for 
the  gradual  elimination  of  such  build- 
ings in  a  way  that  will  fairly  preserve 
the  investment  of  the  owner.  The 
owner  can  reasonably  say  that  he 
should  be  allowed  to  use  his  building 
for  the  purpose  for  which  it  was  con- 
structed. On  the  other  hand  when  he 
comes  to  alter  or  enlarge  his  building, 


the  community  can  reasonably  say 
that,  although  he  has  the  privilege  to 
continue  his  old  building,  he  has  no 
privilege  to  alter  it  or  enlarge  it  in  a 
way  contrary  to  the  requirements  of 
the  district.  In  New  York  an  owner 
of  a  store  or  light  industry  building 
which  does  not  conform  to  the  district 
may  change  it  to  any  other  use  of  the 
same  grade  provided  he  does  not  en- 
large it  at  all  or  reconstruct  it.  If, 
however,  it  is  a  heavy  industry  non- 
conforming building,  it  cannot  be 
changed  to  any  other  use  even  of  the 
same  grade  if  any  structural  alteration 
is  made.  It  will  be  seen  that  these 
rules  as  time  goes  on  tend  to  make  the 
buildings  conform  with  the  require- 
ments of  the  district. 

The  question  also  arises  with  these 
non-conforming  buildings  whether,  if 
a  part  of  the  building  only  is  used  for 
a  non-conforming  use,  such  non-con- 
forming use  can  extend  throughout  the 
building.  The  rule  In  New  York  Is 
that  a  non-conforming  use  cannot  be 
enlarged  at  the  expense  of  a  residence 
use.  But  the  better  rule  would  un- 
doubtedly be  that  a  non-conforming 
use  should  not  be  enlarged  at  the  ex- 
pense of  a  conforming  use.  Each  city 
will  need  to  adapt  its  rule  of  non-con- 
forming uses  to  its  own  peculiar  re- 
quirements. The  ordinance  of  St. 
Louis  has  given  a  board  of  appeals  the 
discretion  to  allow  alterations  in  use, 
reconstruction  and  enlargement  of  such 
buildings.  It  would  seem,  however, 
that  this  Important  subject  ought  to  be 
governed  by  law  rather  than  by  the 
judgment  of  a  board.  The  rules  of 
non-conforming  uses  can  be  and  should 
be  rigid.  They  may  be  difficult  to 
state  but  this  fact  does  not  justify  their 
being  left  entirely  to  the  discretion  of 
a  board. 

Another  subject  related  to  existing 
non-conforming  buildings  and  uses  Is 


ZONING 


327 


the  prevention  after  the  zoning  ordi- 
nance is  adopted  of  the  intrusion  of 
non-conforming  uses  into  conforming 
buildings.  For  instance  in  a  residence 
district  a  home  owner  may  try  to  carry 
on  a  sweat  shop  or  a  restaurant  or  a 
junk  yard.  How  shall  he  be  pre- 
vented? Evidently  this  is  beyond  the 
power  of  control  by  permit.  The 
wrongful  intrusion  must  be  prevented. 
The  ordinance  should  make  such  act 
unlawful  and  make  provision  for  oust- 
ing the  unlawful  use.  In  New  York  this 
duty  is  placed  on  the  fire  department. 
The  fire  department  can  send  notice  to 
the  offending  owner  directing  him  to 
quit  the  unlawful  use.  If  the  owner 
does  not  do  so,  the  facts  are  turned 
over  to  the  corporation  counsel  who 
can  bring  the  offender  before  the  mag- 
istrate's court  for  fine  or  imprisonment. 
The  New  York  enabling  act  does  not 
give  the  city  the  right  of  injunctive  re- 
lief which  it  should  have  done. 


IV. 


HOW^   TO   OBTAIN    A  ZONING   PLAN 


FOR  A  CITY  OR  VILLAGE 

The  state  legislature  is  the  repository 
of  the  police  power.  The  fact  that  the 
legislature  creates  a  municipal  corpora- 
tion undoubtedly  endows  such  corpora- 
tion with  certain  necessary  functions 
under  the  police  power.  If  this  was 
not  so,  the  city  could  not  transact  its 
business.  Before,  however,  a  city  pro- 
ceeds to  adopt  a  zoning  plan,  it  is  wise 
to  obtain  a  specific  donation  of  this 
power  from  the  state  legislature.  This 
can  be  accomplished  by  a  legislative 
act  applicable  to  all  cities  of  a  state,  or 
by  amending  the  charter  of  the  city. 
An  existing  home  rule  act  or  general 
provision  should  be  carefully  scrutin- 
ized before  it  is  depended  upon,  in  or- 
der to  make  sure  that  the  city  possesses 
the  police  power  so  far  as  height,  bulk 
and  use  of  buildings  are  concerned,  to- 
gether with  the  right  to  impose  differ- 


ent regulations  on  different  districts. 
The  enabling  acts  of  several  states  now 
allow  villages  to  zone.  The  decisions 
of  the  courts  do  not  draw  the  line  clear- 
ly between  the  inherent  police  power 
of  a  city  merely  because  the  legislature 
has  allowed  it  to  be  a  city  and  the 
larger  donation  of  police  power  requi- 
site for  a  zoning  plan.  Cities  have 
adopted  fire  limits  which  are  a  simple 
form  of  zoning  and  have  done  this 
without  any  specific  grant  of  power 
from  the  legislature.  New  York  kept 
on  the  safe  side  by  having  its  charter 
amended  by  the  legislature  in  this  re- 
spect and  also  to  provide  that  the 
board  of  estimate  after  a  zoning  plan 
was  once  adopted  could  not  alter  it  ex- 
cept by  a  unanimous  vote  in  certain 
cases,  and  to  provide  for  a  board  of 
appeals  to  be  created  by  the  local  au- 
thorities with  power  to  pass  on  border- 
line and  exceptional  cases  of  buildings. 
Should  the  zoning  plan  be  prepared 
by  a  city  planning  commission  or  a 
zoning  commission?  Should  such  a 
commission  be  composed  of  officials  or 
citizens?  Should  the  council  or  a  com- 
mission be  empowered  to  enact  the 
ordinance?  Each  city  will  decide  these 
questions,  keeping  its  own  peculiar 
needs  in  mind.  The  plan  should  be 
prepared  by  a  commission,  a  majority 
of  whose  members  should  be  citizens 
serving  without  pay.  Certain  officials 
qualified  by  their  experience  and  proved 
judgment  may  be  added.  No  official 
should  be  added  for  the  purpose  of 
educating  him  or  swinging  him  over 
as  an  advocate  of  zoning.  The  com- 
mission should  be  unhampered  in 
making  suggestions  and  it  has  much 
greater  freedom  if  its  makeup  Is  not  so 
largely  official  that  its  doings  are  taken 
to  represent  the  intention  of  the  ad- 
ministration. A  zoning  commission 
has  enough  to  think  about  without 
being  compelled   to  consider  whether 


328             NATIONAL  MUNICIPAL  REVIEW  SUPPLEMENT 

its  composition  will  reflect  on  the  ad-  Fifth  Avenue,  Euclid  Avenue  or  Mich- 
ministration  or  not.  If  the  work  goes  igan  Avenue  is  the  wrong  way  to  be- 
on  wisely  with  frequent  conferences  gin.  Then,  too,  throughout  the  prep- 
with  property  owners  of  all  classes  and  aration  of  the  plan  property  owners  of 
with  frequent  hearings,  there  is  no  all  sorts  should  be  taken  into  the  con- 
danger  but  that  the  excrescences  and  fidence  of  the  commission.  Taxpay- 
theoretical  trimmings  will  be  rubbed  ers'  associations,  boards  of  trade,  man- 
off.  After  the  plan  is  worked  out  after  ufacturers'  associations,  fire  insurance 
many  hearings  and  conferences,  it  men,  savings  banks  and  title  com- 
should  be  reported  to  the  council  who  panics,  and  owners  of  high  buildings, 
should  have  the  power  to  hold  further  low  buildings  and  vacant  land  should 
hearings,  refer  it  back  to  the  commis-  all  have  a  part  in  advising  what  will 
sion  if  desired  and  ultimately  to  enact  stabilize  property  and  prevent  confis- 
it.     The  adoption  and  amendment  of  a  cation. 

zoning  plan  belong  to  the  council   as  Zoning  looks  mainly  to  the  future, 

much  as  the  street  layout.     Moreover  The  zoning  of  built-up  localities  must 

the  natural  growth  and  changes  in  the  recognize  actual  conditions  and  make 

city  will  require  intelligent  amendment  the  best  of  mistakes  of  the  past.     But 

of  the  zoning  plan  year  by  year  and  it  the  zoning  of  open   areas,   while   fol- 

is  probably  impossible  to  expect  that  lowing    desirable    natural    tendencies, 

citizens  serving  without  pay  can  keep  must  check  the  undesirable  tendencies, 

in  touch  with  the  needs  of  the  city  so  Zoning    should    follow   nature    and    it 

well  as  officials  assisted  by  the  constant  should  not  be  forgotten  that  the  city 

advice  of  the  city  departments.     It  Is  has  a  history.     There  will  be  a  tempta- 

of  doubtful  wisdom  to  put  actual  legis-  tion  for  radical  individuals  and  officials 

lative  power  in  a  city  planning  or  zon-  to  use  zoning  as  a  field  for  experimen- 

ing  commission.  tation.     This  is  a  mistake.     The  scope 

In  most  cases  it  is  best  for  a  zoning  of  the  police  power  is  measured  by  the 

commission  to  prepare  the  plan.   There  universality  of  its  recognition  as  well  as 

is  a  difference  between  the  planning  of  the  universality  of  Its  need.      Some  of 

public  streets  and  places  and  the  work-  the  features  of  modern  zoning  have  not 

ing  out  of  a  zoning  plan.    The  former  yet  been   so  widely  approved  by  the 

has    to    do   with    land    and    buildings  courts  that  cities  newly  preparing  plans 

owned   or  to   be   owned   by   the  city,  can  afford  to  go  very  far  in  advance  of 

Zoning  has  to  do  with  the  regulation  the  procession. 

of  private   property.      The  two  fields  Such  a  city  will  be  tempted  to  try 

are    therefore    quite    distinct.      More  piecemeal  zoning.    On  the  appointment 

rapid  progress  Is  made  by  creating  a  of  a  zoning  commission  home  owners  in 

zoning  commission.    Its  work  is  funda-  localities  subjected  to  some  immediate 

mental.     It  should  be  carried  on  inten-  danger  w^ill  go  to  the  commission  and 

sively  with  the   recognition,   however,  show  how  they  must  have  an  immedl- 

that  it  is  part  of  the  city  plan.  ate  remedy  because  private  restrictions 

A  farsighted  zoning  commission  will  are   about   to   expire   or   a    factory    is 

early  enlist  the  favor  of  the  owners  of  about  to  be  built  or  plans  for  a  public 

small  homes  and  stores.     They  can  be  garage  are  being  filed.     If  the  zoning 

shown  in  the  beginning  how  they  can-  commission  refuses  to  act,  they  go  to 

be    protected    against    flats,    garages,  the  council.     Sometimes  more  time  is 

junk  yards  and  factories.     To  feature  lost  in  debating  the  items  of  proposed 


ZONING 


329 


piecemeal  zoning  than  would  suffice  to 
zone  the  entire  city.  Such  piecemeal 
zoning  should  not  be  done.  In  the 
long  run  it  delays.  Precarious  locali- 
ties should  get  behind  comprehensive 
zoning  and  hurry  it  up.  Comprehen- 
sive zoning  of  an  entire  city  is  strong 
because  localities  substantially  simi- 
larly situated  are  treated  alike.  Piece- 
meal zoning  is  weak  because  it  is  dis- 
criminatory. Piecemeal  zoning  is  apt 
to  produce  test  cases  full  of  danger 
because,  for  instance,  an  owner  of  a 
vacant  lot  is  prevented  from  building  a 
garage  in  one  residential  locality  when 
a  similar  owner  in  a  similar  locality 
ten  blocks  away  is  allowed  to  build  a 
garage.  This  is  discriminatory  on  its 
face  and  is  likely  to  incur  the  criticism 
of  the  courts.  Then  if  some  adverse 
decision  is  handed  down  in  such  a  test 
case,  critics  of  zoning  and  sometimes 
newspapers  will  assert  that  the  courts 
have  declared  zoning  to  be  unconstitu- 
tional. A'lore  time  is  taken  to  explain 
how  the  mistake  was  made  and  thus 
comprehensive  zoning  is  still  more  de- 
layed. The  favor  of  precarious  dis- 
tricts is  needed  in  advancing  a  general 
plan.  To  zone  all  such  districts  first  is 
to  throw  away  part  of  the  help  which 
a  zoning  campaign  needs.  In  New 
York  the  temptation  to  allow  piece- 
meal zoning  was  successfully  resisted. 
The  actual  damage  that  occurred  was 
almost  infinitesimal.  If,  however,  the 
piecemeal  plan  had  been  started  the 
city  might  not  be  zoned  today.  An- 
other-argument  against  piecemeal  zon- 
ing is  that  one  cannot  know  how  to 
zone  any  spot  in  a  city  until  he  knows 
how  to  zone  the  entire  city  because  the 
use  of  any  one  locality  has  some  rela- 
tion to  all  others.  If  a  city  is  deter- 
mined not  to  wait  for  the  completion  of 
the  comprehensive  plan  it  should  re- 
sort to  interim  zoning,  which  by  broad 
regulations  covers  the  entire  city. 


The  zoning  of  the  entire  city  should 
be  preceded  by  an  accurate  mapping 
of  existing  buildings  and  uses.  Present 
and  future  transportation  lines  must 
be  taken  into  account.  In  New  York 
a  chart  was  made  showing  height  of 
buildings,  another  showing  frame  build- 
ings, another  showing  use,  whether 
industrial,  business  or  residence,  an- 
other showing  density  of  population 
and  another  showing  by  different  col- 
ors the  distances  of  every  part  of  the 
city  from  City  Hall  measured  by  trav- 
elling time  on  rapid  transit  railroads. 
These  fundamental  data  assist  in  pre- 
paring a  foundation  of  facts  instead  of 
a  foundation  of  guesswork. 

It  is  apparent  that  the  members  of  a 
zoning  commission  cannot  personally 
attend  to  the  collection  of  data,  prepa- 
ration of  maps  and  the  working  out 
of  innumerable  detail  problems.  The 
city  must  furnish  the  zoning  commis- 
sion with  a  staff  headed  by  a  compe- 
tent consultant.  The  chief  of  staff 
should  be  more  than  an  ordinary  en- 
gineer or  architect  or  lawyer.  He 
should  be  a  broad-gauge  expert  in  the 
distribution  of  urban  population,  in  the 
layout  of  streets  and  public  places,  in 
forms  and  materials  of  buildings  and  in 
the  limitations  imposed  by  law  on  the 
exercise  of  the  police  power.  No  city 
should  be  too  proud  to  retain  an  out- 
side man.  New  York  city  took  five 
years  and  did  not  do  the  job  as  well 
as  she  could  do  it  today  in  two  years. 
The  reason  was  that  she  was  plowing 
new  ground  and  there  were  almost  no 
precedents  to  help.  But  some  one 
may  say  "Why  not  get  the  ordinances 
and  maps  from  zoned  cities  and  pick 
out  what  seems  to  be  the  best?"  The 
reason  is  that  imitation  is  likely  to  be 
disastrous.  No  two  cities  are  alike. 
Each  deserves  an  accurate  study  of  its 
own  growth,  tendencies  and  needs. 
The   heights   of   buildings    allowed    in 


330             NATIONAL  MUNICIPAL  REVIEW  SUPPLEMENT 

New  York  are  far  too  great  for  imita-  eery  on  the  other.  It  is  apparent  that 
tion.  It  was  the  case  of  the  horse  be-  any  provisions  inserted  in  the  ordi- 
ing  stolen  before  the  barn  door  was  nance  itself  are  not  a  sufficient  protec- 
locked.  Lower  heights  in  the  sky-  tion  to  owners  to  build  in  conformity 
scraper  districts  could  not  be  imposed  with  the  zoning  ordinance  because  one 
with  fairness  to  owners  of  partially  im-  council  may  undo  the  work  of  its  pred- 
proved  land.  Too  great  congestion  in  ecessor.  The  only  safeguard  is  in  a 
tenement  house  districts  is  allowed,  provision  of  the  legislature  which  will 
This  was  due  to  some  extent  to  existing  prevent  the  city  council  from  freely 
conditions  and  to  some  extent  to  the  changing  the  maps  and  ordinance.  The 
novelty  of  the  enterprise  which  prop-  New  York  enabling  act  provided  that 
erly  induced  caution.  The  chief  of  the  city  authorities  could  not  change 
staff  should  know  the  reasons  that  have  the  ordinance  or  maps  without  fixing 
prompted  different  methods  in  differ-  and  advertising  a  public  hearing,  and 
ent  cities.  He  will,  of  course,  have  be-  this  further  provision  was  added  that, 
fore  him  the  ordinances  and  maps  of  if  20  per  cent  of  the  frontage  affected 
all  other  cities,  but  he  will  be  more  by  the  change,  or  20  per  cent  of  the 
than  an  imitator.  frontage  opposite,  or  20  per  cent  of  the 
We  are  now  ready  to  listen  to  the  frontage  in  the  rear  protested  in  writ- 
question  of  the  intelligent  reader  which  ing  against  the  change,  then  the  unani- 
at  this  point  is  quite  sure  to  be  "How  mous  vote  of  the  board  of  estimate  was 
can  you  run  a  city  into  a  zoning  plan  required  to  make  the  change  valid, 
mould  and  expect  it  to  stay  there;  do  Under  a  legislative  requirement  of  this 
not  cities  have  to  grow  and  change?"  sort  there  is  little  danger  of  hasty  ac- 
The  answer  is  that  zoning  encourages  tion,  and  if  a  protest  of  20  per  cent  of 
growth  while  at  the  same  time  it  pre-  the  frontage  is  filed  it  is  practically  im- 
vents  too  rapid  changes.  Every  vital  possible  for  the  applicant  to  obtain  the 
growing  city  must  change  and  the  zon-  unanimous  vote  of  the  council  unless 
ing  plan  must  be  capable  of  change,  his  case  is  sound  and  imperative. 
The  same  authority  that  has  adopted  Cities  which  have  large  powers  under 
the  ordinance  and  maps  must  have  the  the  home  rule  act  should  ask  their  state 
power  to  amend  them.  On  the  other  legislatures  to  impose  this  check  or  some 
hand  a  high  degree  of  permanency  or  similar  check  upon  the  city  council, 
stiffness  must  be  insisted  upon,  other-  Another  provision  that  should  be 
wise  the  property  owner  who  puts  up  a  supplied  by  the  state  legislature  is  to 
fourteen-story  building  in  compliance  empower  the  city  to  create  a  board  of 
with  the  zoning  law  might  be  disap-  appeals.  The  city  without  such  a 
pointed  to  find  that  the  council  had  grant  cannot  endow  a  board  of  appeals 
altered  the  law  so  that  a  twenty-story  with  power  to  decide  certain  border- 
building  might  go  up  on  each  side  of  line  cases  of  buildings  which  will  be 
his  building.  He  would  then  be  pen-  enumerated  in  the  ordinance  itself,  or 
allzed  because  he  obeyed  the  law.  to  make  variations  in  the  provisions  of 
Or  a  man  might  put  up  a  fine  residence  the  law  to  carry  out  the  spirit  of  the 
in  an  outlying  residence  district  de-  law  and  prevent  unnecessary  hardship, 
pending  upon  its  permanence  and  find  It  Is  a  safeguard  in  the  administration 
that  the  council  had  changed  it  to  of  the  law  to  have  a  board  of  appeals, 
business  and  he  was  likely  to  have  a  The  letter  of  the  ordinance  and  maps 
butcher  store  on  one  side  and  a  gro-  may  be  the  extreme  of  hardship.    No 


ZONING  331 

words  can  be  used   in  the  ordinance  corrupt  or  incompetent  board  of  ap- 

that  will  provide  for  the  multitudinous  peals  could  do  a  vast  amount  of  injury 

contingencies    of   new   buildings.        If  but  it  is  the  business  of  the  mayor  or 

there  is  no  board  of  appeals  to  apply  appointing  power  to  see  that  the  board 

the  spirit  of  the  law  and  vary  its  letter,  is   made  up  of  impartial  and  experi- 

the  exercise  of  the  police  power  may  in  enced  men, 

certain  cases  be  arbitrary  and  incur  The  council  should  have  power  to 
the  criticism  of  the  courts.  Moreover  amend  the  maps  and  ordinance  and 
it  is  a  great  safeguard  to  preserve  that  the  board  of  appeals  should  not.  The 
elasticity  which  a  board  of  appeals  can  board  of  appeals  should  have  the  power 
give  to  a  zoning  plan  in  order  to  min-  to  vary  the  ordinance  and  maps  in 
imize  the  danger  of  a  pronouncement  cases  of  specific  buildings  and  the 
of  unconstitutionality  by  the  courts,  council  should  not.  In  other  words 
It  is  a  well-recognized  rule  of  the  law  the  council  should  have  charge  of  the 
that  before  an  aggrieved  owner  can  ob-  maps,  for  the  law-making  power  should 
tain  a  writ  of  mandamus  from  the  control  the  fundamental  restrictions, 
court  against  a  building  superintendent  The  board  of  appeals  should  have 
to  compel  him  to  file  plans  and  issue  a  charge  of  the  application  of  the  ordi- 
permit,  he  must  exhaust  all  of  the  rem-  nance  and  maps  to  specific  buildings 
edies  afforded  him  by  the  city.  This  because  the  council  does  not  have  the 
means  that  before  he  can  bring  up  the  time  or  preparation  to  go  into  the  de- 
question  of  unconstitutionality  he  must  tails  of  exceptional  circumstances  as  to 
bring  his  plans  before  the  board  of  ap-  specific  buildings.  There  should  be  no 
peals.  Experience  has  shown  that  a  confusion  of  the  powers  of  the  council 
wise  board  of  appeals  can  practically  and  the  board  of  appeals.  The  field  of 
always  mitigate  the  unfairness  involved  each  is  entirely  separate  and  distinct, 
in  the  letter  of  the  law  if  the  applicant  In  New  York  the  board  of  appeals 
has  a  sound  and  deserving  case.  If,  is  authorized  by  the  ordinance  to  grant 
however,  the  board  of  appeals  will  not  a  permit  for  a  public  garage  in  a  busi- 
adjust  his  case  to  suit  him,  he  goes  ness  street  if  there  is  already  one  pub- 
before  the  courts  with  all  of  the  lie  garage  or  public  stable  in  that 
chances  against  him,  for  the  courts  will  street  between  two  intersecting  streets; 
say  that  his  plans  run  counter  to  an  to  allow  the  projection  of  a  business 
impartial  plan  covering  the  entire  city  building  into  a  residence  district  or  a 
and  that  in  addition  a  fair  board  of  factory  building  into  a  business  district 
appeals  having  the  power  of  adjust-  in  certain  specified  cases  at  the  border- 
ment  in  cases  of  unnecessary  hardship  line  between  two  districts,  and  to  per- 
decided  against  the  applicant.  Every  mit  a  temporary  non-conforming  use  in 
decision  of  the  board  of  appeals  should  outlying  undeveloped  areas.  Other 
be  reviewable  by  the  courts  on  writ  of  powers  similar  to  these  are  enumerated, 
certiorari.  Such  review,  however,  in-  Their  power  to  vary  the  ordinance  and 
volves  no  danger  of  overthrow  of  the  maps  in  cases  of  unnecessary  hardship 
law  itself  by  the  courts  but  only  a  is  an  entirely  separate  power  and  is 
possible  limitation  of  the  functions  of  given  directly  by  the  state  legislature, 
the  board.     Some  will  say  that  there 

should  be  no  board  of  appeals  because  v.     where  to  get  information 

such  a  board  will  be  too  easy  and  break  The  reader  can  hardly  hope  to  ob- 

down  the  law  by  granting  favors.      A  tain  from  this  article  more  than  a  brief 


332 


NATIONAL  MUNICIPAL  REVIEW  SUPPLEMENT 


outline  of  the  subject  of  zoning.  The 
councilman,  city  engineer  or  legal  ad- 
viser of  a  city  contemplating  zoning 
will  desire  to  know  where  he  can  obtain 
more  complete  information  on  what 
has  been  done  or  attempted.  Prob- 
ably the  most  exhaustive  books  that 
have  been  published,  collecting  data 
from  all  cities,  giving  full  tabulation 
and  maps,  and  with  discussions  of  legal 
problems  involved,  are  the  report  of 
the  heights  of  buildings  commission  of 
the  board  of  estimate  and  apportion- 
ment of  the  city  of  New  York,  De- 
cember 23,  1913,  and  the  report  of  the 
commission  on  building  districts  and 
restrictions  of  the  board  of  estimate 
and  apportionment  of  the  city  of  New 
York,  June  2,  1916.  These  reports 
were  made  during  the  preparation  of 
the  zoning  ordinance  and  maps  for 
New  York.  These  volumes  will  be 
found  in  many  public  and  municipal 
libraries.  The  following  cities  have  to 
a  greater  or  less  extent  adopted  the 
zoning  plan: 

Alameda,  Cal. 

Berkeley,  Cal. 

Coronado,  Cal. 

Fresno,  Cal. 

Los  Angeles,  Cal. 

Oakland,  Cal. 

Palo  Alto,  Cal. 

Pasadena,  Cal. 

Pomona,  Cal. 

Sacramento,  Cal. 

San  Francisco,  Cal. 

Santa  Barbara,  Cal. 

Sierre  Madre,  Cal. 

South  Pasadena,  Cal. 

Turlock,  Cal. 

Washington,  D.  C. 

Atlanta,  Ga. 

Evanston,  111. 

Glencoe,  111. 

Oak  Park,  111. 

Brockton,  Mass. 

Gardner,  Mass. 


Minneapolis,  Minn. 

Richmond  Heights,  Mo. 

St.  Louis,  Mo. 

Omaha,  Neb. 

Bound  Brook,  N.  J. 

Caldwell,  N.  J. 

Cliffside  Park,  N.  J. 

East  Orange,  N.  J. 

Glenridge,  N.  J. 
^    Hoboken,  N.  J. 

Irvington,  N.  J. 

Maplewood,  N.  J. 

Montclair,  N.  J, 

Newark,  N.  J.' 

Nutley,  N.  J. 

Paterson,  N.  J. 

Rahway,  N.  J. 

Roselle  Park,  N.  J. 
-  South  Orange,  N.  J. 

Westfield,  N.  J. 

West  Orange,  N.  J. 

Gloversville,  N.  Y. 

New  Rochelle,  N.  Y. 

New  York  City,  N.  Y. 

Niagara  Falls,  N.  Y. 

Ossining,  N.  Y. 

Rochester,  N.  Y. 

White  Plains,  N.  Y. 

Yonkers,  N.  Y. 

Cleveland  Heights,  Ohio. 

East  Cleveland,  Ohio. 

Lakewood,  Ohio. 

Salt  Lake  City,  Utah. 

Tacoma,  Wash. 

Cudahy,  Wis. 

Milwaukee,  Wis. 

Neenah,  Wis. 

Racine,  Wis. 
By  addressing  the  chief  engineer, 
information  can  usually  be  obtained 
from  any  of  the  above  mentioned  cities. 
The  National  City  Planning  Confer- 
ence has  for  the  last  ten  years  carried 
on  an  unremitting  and  intensive  study 
of  this  subject.  It  has  undoubtedly 
been  not  only  the  principal  advocate 
and  supporter  of  zoning  but  also  the 
most  active  disseminator  of  informa- 


ZONING 


333 


tion  about  zoning.  The  American  City 
Planning  Institute,  affiliated  with  the 
National  Conference,  has  devoted  a 
series  of  meetings  to  discussing  the 
principles  of  zoning  from  every  angle, 
receiving  suggestions  from  every  part 
of  the  country  in  the  hope  that  it  might 
promulgate  an  authoritative  statement 
of  such  principles.  The  annual  reports 
of  the  National  Conference  contain  a 
great  deal  of  helpful  material  on  zon- 
ing. Lawson  Purdy  Is  the  president 
and  Flavel  Shurtleff,  60  State  Street, 
Boston,  Massachusetts,  is  the  secre- 
tary of  both  organizations.  Herbert 
Hoover,  secretary  of  commerce,  Wash- 
ington, D.  C,  with  the  help  of  an  ad- 
visory committee  representing  many 
states  is  now  preparing  information  on 
enabling  acts  and  ordinances. 

VI.       STATEMENT  OF  PRINCIPLES   OF  ZON- 
ING  FORMULATED  BY  THE  AUTHOR 

(i)  The  subject  in  relation  to  city  planning 
should  be  called  zoning,  the  boards  zoning 
boards  or  commissions.  In  laws  and  ordinances 
the  word  zoning  should  be  used  in  the  title  and 
the  word  districts  in  the  body  of  the  law  to 
specify  the  areas  affected. 

(2)  Zoning  is  the  creation  by  law  of  districts 
in  which  regulations  differing  in  different  dis- 
tricts prohibit  Injurious  or  unsuitable  structures 
and  uses  of  structures  and  land. 

(3)  Zoning  should  be  done  under  the  police 
power  of  the  state  and  not  by  condemnation. 

(4)  Zoning  by  the  exercise  of  the  police  pow- 
er of  the  state  must  relate  to  the  health,  safety, 
morals,  order  and  general  welfare  of  the  com- 
munity. It  follows  therefore  that  police  power 
zoning  must  be  confined  to  police  power  reasons 
such  as  fire  risk,  lack  of  light  and  air,  congested 
living  quarters  and  other  conditions  inimical  to 
the  general  welfare.  The  preventive  regulations 
based  on  these  reasons,  which  necessarily  must 
be  applied  differently  and  in  different  measure 
in  different  districts,  naturally  group  themselves 
into  zoning  according  to  use  of  structures  and 
land,  according  to  height  of  buildings  and  ac- 
cording to  portion  of  lot  covered  by  buildings. 
Zoning  might  go  further  and  embrace  the  sub- 
jects of  fire  limits,  setbacks,  and  doubtless  other 
classes   of  regulations.     Enhancement  of  value 


alone,  or  aesthetics  alone  has  not  thus  far  been 
considered  by  the  courts  to  be  a  sufficient  basis 
for  zoning  when  done  under  the  police  power. 

(5)  Before  enacting  zoning  regulations  a  city 
should  have  obtained  the  power  to  do  so  from 
the  state  legislature.  The  essential  statement  in 
such  grant  of  power  is  that  the  city  may  impose 
different  regulations  ior  structures  and  for  the 
uses  of  land  and  structures  in  different  districts. 

(6)  Zoning  Is  part  of  the  city  plan  and  should 
be  applied  to  land  as  early  as  possible  and  where 
practicable  at  the  time  the  street  layout  is 
adopted.  Studies  for  zoning  In  undeveloped 
districts  should  be  accompanied  by  studies  for 
at  least  main  and  secondary  thoroughfares. 

(7)  Zoning  when  applied  to  existing  cities 
should  be  adapted  generally  to  existing  condi- 
tions but  should  endeavor  to  check  undesirable 
tendencies. 

(8)  In  the  same  city,  localities  having  sub- 
stantially a  like  character  and  situation  should 
be  zoned  In  the  same  manner.  This  principle 
should  prevent  arbitrary,  piecemeal  or  partial 
zoning,  which  is  dangerous  and  may  be  Illegal. 

(9)  Zoning  should  be  sufficiently  stable  to 
protect  those  who  comply  with  the  law,  but  at 
the  same  time  should  be  susceptible  of  change 
by  the  municipal  authority  under  strict  checks 
prescribed  by  state  law,  so  that  it  can  be  altered 
to  meet  changing  conditions  or  conditions  not 
adequately  recognized. 

(10)  Provision  should  be  made  that  Inter- 
ested property  owners  may  initiate  the  consid- 
eration of  changes,  but  the  actual  application  of 
the  zoning  regulations  to  the  land  and  any 
changes  therein  should  rest  with  the  municipal 
authority  and  not  with  the  property  owners.  It 
Is  a  wise  expedient  to  require  more  than  a  ma- 
jority vote  or  even  a  unanimous  vote,  of  the 
municipal  authority  to  changes  unless  a  substan- 
tial majority  of  the  property  owners  affected 
thereby  have  given  their  consent  thereto. 

(11)  Zoning  regulations  may  properly  be 
supplemented  by  restrictions  in  deeds  based  up- 
on purely  aesthetic  reasons  or  for  the  purpose  of 
creating  a  uniform  residential  development  or 
for  other  purposes. 

(12)  Regulations  applicable  to  all  buildings 
of  a  class  regardless  of  location,  such  as  relate 
to  plumbing,  strength  of  material,  safety  de- 
vices, or  protection  of  employes  against  fire 
should  not  be  placed  in  a  zoning  law.  They  are 
properly  part  of  a  housing  law,  factory  law  or 
building  law.  Only  those  requirements  which 
differ  in  different  districts  enter  into  a  zoning 
law. 


334 


NATIONAL  MUNICIPAL  REVIEW  SUPPLEMENT 


(13)  Use  districts  normally  comprise  resi- 
dence, business,  light  industry  and  heavy  indus- 
try districts.  The  kinds  of  industries  prohib- 
ited in  light  industry  districts  should  be  enumer- 
ated. Residences  should  be  permitted  in  busi- 
ness districts  and  both  residences  and  business 
should  be  permitted  in  light  industry  districts. 
It  is  a  moot  question  whether  and  under  what 
conditions  residences  should  be  prohibited  in 
heavy  industry  districts.  Classes  of  use  dis- 
tricts should  be  few.  The  more  minute  adapta- 
tion to  local  needs  should  as  a  rule  be  provided 
for  in  the  area  and  height  zoning  and  by  per- 
mitting special  uses  under  conditions  stated  in 
the  ordinance  or  under  the  administration  of  a 
board  of  appeals  empowered  to  make  building 
exceptions.  There  is  lack  of  agreement  as  to 
the  desirabilit}^  and  legality  of  prohibiting  apart- 
ment houses,  flats,  tenement  houses  and  other 
multiple  dwellings  in  certain  districts  limited  to 
single  family  dwellings. 

(14)  Where  zoning  regulations  apply  only  to 
new  buildings  (as  is  the  safer  practice)  buildings 
occupied  for  non-conforming  uses  should  be 
placed  under  constant  pressure  to  become  con- 
forming through  changes  with  the  lapse  of  time. 

(a)  Structural  alterations  made  in  a  non- 
conforming building  should  not  during  its  life 
exceed  one-half  its  value,  nor  should  the  build- 
ing be  enlarged,  unless  its  use  is  changed  to  a 
conforming  use. 

(b)  No  non-conforming  use  should  be  ex- 
tended by  displacing  a  conforming  use. 

(c)  In  a  residence  district  no  non-conform- 
ing building  or  premises  devoted  to  a  use  per- 
mitted in  a  business  district  should  be  changed 
into  a  use  not  permitted  in  a  business  district. 

(d)  In  a  residence  or  business  district  no 
non-conforming  building  or  premises  devoted  to 
a  use  permitted  in  a  light  industry  district 
should  be  changed  into  a  use  not  permitted  in  a 
light  industry  district. 

(e)  In  a  residence,  business  or  light  industry 
district  no  building  devoted  to  a  use  excluded 
from  a  light  industry  district  should  be  structur- 
ally altered  if  its  use  shall  have  been  changed 
since  the  time  of  the  passage  of  the  ordinance  to 
another  use  also  excluded  from  a  light  industry 
district. 

(f)  In  a  residence,  business  or  light  industry 
district  no  building  devoted  to  a  use  excluded 
from  a  light  industry  district  should  have  its  use 
changed  to  another  use  which  is  also  excluded 
from  a  light  industry  district  if  the  building  has 
been  structurally  altered  since  the  time  of  the 
passage  of  the  ordinance. 


(15)  In  business  and  industry  districts  towers 
within  a  prescribed  height  limit  should  be  per- 
mitted but  should  not  occupy  over  one-quarter 
of  the  lot  area.  They  should  be  allowed  on  the 
street  line  all  the  way  up,  but  should  stand  away 
from  side  lines  according  to  a  suitable  rule. 

(16)  Height  limitations  should  be  determined 
primarily  by  widths  of  streets  and  the  use  of  the 
property.  There  should  also  be  flat  maximum 
limitations  irrespective  of  street  widths  which 
should  be  fixed  with  due  regard  to  local  condi- 
tions. 

(17)  Included  m  area  limitations  there  should 
be  a  provision  for  the  percentage  of  lot  that  can 
be  covered  and  a  limitation  of  families  per  acre 
or  of  the  minimum  square  feet  of  lot  area  per 
family. 

(18)  There  should  be  an  administrative  board 
with  power  under  state  law: 

(a)  To  rectify  on  appeals  the  errors  of  build- 
ing superintendents  in  passing  on  applications 
for  building  permits. 

(b)  To  decide  borderline  and  exceptional 
cases  of  buildings  where  specified  in  the  ordi- 
nance. 

(c)  To  vary  the  literal  requirement  of  the 
law  in  individual  cases  of  buildings  where  un- 
necessary and  excessive  hardship  Is  caused  and 
the  intention  of  the  law  Is  equally  accomplished 
by  an  alternative  method  to  be  prescribed. 

Not  only  should  the  powers  of  such  a  board 
be  specified  in  the  ordinance,  but  the  state  leg- 
islature should  authorize  the  municipal  authority 
to  create  such  a  board  and  to  provide  In  the 
ordinance  what  borderline  and  exceptional  cases 
it  may  decide.  A  larger  vote  than  a  mere  ma- 
jority should  be  required  for  an  affirmative  de- 
cision. Proceedings  and  records  of  the  board 
should  be  public  and  members  of  the  board 
should  be  removable  for  cause.  Decisions  of 
the  board  should  be  subject  to  court  review. 

VII.       SUGGESTIONS    FOR   FORMS    OF 
LEGISLATIVE    ENACTMENTS 

The  acts  of  the  legislature  of  the 
state  of  New  York  probably  cover  the 
subject  of  zoning  more  completely  than 
those  of  any  other  state.  Reference 
to  these  enactments  is  more  confidently 
made  by  the  author  because  they  have 
been  worked  out  from  the  ground  up 
in  the  most  painstaking  manner,  and 
have  stood  the  test  of  court  construc- 
tion. 


ZONING 


335 


The  statutes  applicable  to  New  York 
city  will  be  found  in  Chapter  IX  "En- 
abling Acts."  They  are  embodied  in 
the  charter  of  the  city  of  New  York. 

Appended  hereto,  however,  is  the 
New  York  legislative  enactment  grant- 
ing zoning  powers  to  all  cities  of  the 
state.  It  contains  the  best  features  of 
the  New  York  charter,  with  a  few 
changes  made  desirable  by  court  de- 
cisions. 

"An  Act  to  amend  the  general  city  law,  in 
relation  to  the  regulation  of  buildings  and  the 
location  of  trades  and  industries. 

(Section  20.  Grant  of  specific  powers.  Sub- 
ject to  the  constitution  and  general  laws  of 
this  state,  every  city  is  empowered). 

24.  To  regulate  and  limit  the  height  and 
bulk  of  buildings  hereafter  erected  and  to  reg- 
ulate and  determine  the  area  of  yards,  courts 
and  other  open  spaces,  and  for  said  purposes 
to  divide  the  city  into  districts.  Such  regula- 
tions shall  be  uniform  for  each  class  of  buildings 
throughout  any  district,  but  the  regulations  in 
one  or  more  districts  may  difTer  from  those  in 
other  districts.  Such  regulations  shall  be  de- 
signed to  secure  safety  from  fire  and  other  dan- 
gers and  to  promote  the  public  health  and  wel- 
fare, including,  so  far  as  conditions  may  per- 
mit, provision  for  adequate  light,  air  and  con- 
venience of  access,  and  shall  be  made  with 
reasonable  regard  to  the  character  of  buildings 
erected  in  each  district,  the  value  of  land  and 
the  use  to  which  it  may  be  put,  to  the  end  that 
such  regulations  may  promote  public  health, 
safety  and  welfare  and  the  most  desirable  use 
for  which  the  land  of  each  district  may  be 
adapted  and  may  tend  to  conserve  the  value  of 
buildings  and  enhance  the  value  of  land  through- 
out the  city.. 

25.  To  regulate  and  restrict  the  location  of 
trades  and  industries  and  the  location  of  build- 
ings, designed  for  specified  uses,  and  for  said 
purposes  to  divide  the  city  into  districts  and  to 
prescribe  for  each  such  district  the  trades  and 
industries  that  shall  be  excluded  or  subjected  to 
special  regulation  and  the  uses  for  which  build- 
ings may  not  be  erected  or  altered.  Such  reg- 
ulations shall  be  designed  to  promote  the  public 
health,  safety  and  general  welfare  and  shall  be 
made  with  reasonable  consideration,  among  other 
things,  to  the  character  of  the  district,  its  pe- 
culiar suitability  for  particular  uses,  the  con- 
servation of  property  values  and  the  direction 
of  building  development,  in  accord  with  a  well 
considered  plan."  ** 

Chapter  483  of  the  general  city  law  of  the 
state  of  New  York,  passed  May  15,  191 7. 

"An  Act  to  amend  the  general  city  law,  in  re- 
lation to  the  regulation  of  buildings  and  the 
location  of  trades  and  industries. 

§81.     Board  of  appeals,     i.     The  Mayor  of 


any  city,  except  a  city  of  the  first  class,  may 
appoint  a  board  of  appeals  consisting  of  five 
members,  each  to  be  appointed  for  three  years. 
Such  board  of  appeals  shall  hear  and  decide 
appeals  from  and  review  any  order,  requirement, 
decision  or  determination  made  by  an  adminis- 
trative official  charged  with  the  enforcement  of 
any  ordinance  adopted  pursuant  to  paragraphs 
twenty-four  and  twenty-five  of  section  twenty 
of  this  chapter.  They  shall  also  hear  and  de- 
cide all  matters  referred  to  them  or  upon  which 
they  are  required  to  pass  under  any  ordinance 
of  the  common  council  adopted  pursuant  to  such 
two  paragraphs.  The  concurring  vote  of  four 
members  of  the  board  shall  be  necessary  to  re- 
verse any  order,  requirement,  decision  or  de- 
termination of  any  such  administrative  official, 
or  to  decide  in  favor  of  the  applicant  any  mat- 
ter upon  which  they  are  required  to  pass  under 
any  such  ordinance  or  to  effect  any  variation  in 
such  ordinance.  Every  decision  of  such  board 
shall,  however,  be  subject  to  review  by  cer- 
tiorari. Such  appeal  may  be  taken  by  any  per- 
son aggrieved  or  by  an  officer,  department 
board  or  bureau  of  the  city. 

2.  Appeal,  how  taken.  Such  appeal  shall  be 
taken  within  such  time  as  shall  be  prescribed 
by  the  board  of  appeals  by  general  rule,  by  fil- 
ing with  the  officer  from  whom  the  appealis 
taken  and  with  the  board  of  appeals  of  a  notice 
of  appeal,  specifying  the  grounds  thereof.  The 
officer  from  whom  the  appeal  is  taken  shall 
forthwith  transmit  to  the  board  all  the  papers 
constituting  the  record  upon  which  the  action 
appealed  from  was  taken. 

3.  Stay.  An  appeal  stays  all  proceedings  in 
furtherance  of  the  action  appealed  from  unless 
the  officer  from  whom  the  appeal  is  taken  certi- 
fies to  the  board  of  appeals  after  the  notice  of 
appeal  shall  have  been  filed  with  him  that  by 
reason  of  facts  stated  in  the  certificate  a  stay 
would,  in  his  opinion,  cause  imminent  peril  to 
life  and  property,  in  which  case  proceedirigs 
shall  not  be  stayed  otherwise  than  by  a  restrain- 
ing order  which  may  be  granted  by  the  board  of 
appeals  or  by  the  supreme  court,  on  application, 
on  notice  to  the  officer  from  whom  the  appeal  is 
taken  and  on  due  cause  shown. 

4.  Hearing  of  and  decision  upon  appeal. 
The  board  of  appeals  shall  fix  a  reasonable  time 
for  the  hearing  of  the  appeal  and  give  due  notice 
thereof  to  the  parties,  and  decide  the  same 
within  reasonable  time.  Upon  the  hearing,  any 
party  may  appear  in  person  or  by  agent  or  by 
attorney.  The  board  of  appeals  may  reverse  or 
affirm,  wholly  or  partly,  or  may  modify  the 
order,  requirement,  decision  or  determination  ap- 
pealed from  and  shall  make  such  order,  require- 
ment, decision  or  determination  as  in  its  opinion 
ought  to  be  made  in  the  premises,  and  to  that 
end  shall  have  all  the  powers  of  the  officer  from 
whom  the  appeal  is  taken.  Where  there  are 
practical  difficulties  or  unnecessary  hardship  in 
the  way  of  carrying  out  the  strict  letter  of  such 
ordinance,  the  board  of  appeals  shall  have  the 
power  of  passing  upon  appeals,  to  varyor  mod- 
ify any  of  its  rules,  regulations  or  provisions -re- 


336 


NATIONAL  MUNICIPAL  REVIEW  SUPPLEMENT 


lating  to  the  construction,  structural  changes  in, 
equipment  or  alteration  of  buildings  or  struc- 
tures, so  that  the  spirit  of  the  ordinance  shall 
be  observed,  public  safety  secured  and  substan- 
tial justice  done. 

§82.  Certiorari  to  review  decision  of  board 
of  appeals,  i.  Petition.  Any  person  or  per- 
sons, jointly  or  severally  aggriev^ed  by  any  de- 
cision of  the  board  of  appeals,  or  any  officer, 
department,  board  or  bureau  of  the  city,  may 
present  to  the  supreme  court  a  petition,  duly 
verified,  setting  forth  that  such  decision  is  illegal, 
in  whole  or  in  part,  specifying  the  grounds  of 
the  illegality.  Such  petition  must  be  presented 
to  a  justice  of  the  supreme  court  or  at  a  special 
term  of  the  supreme  court  within  thirty  days 
after  the  filing  of  the  decision  in  the  office  of  the 
board. 

2.  Writ  of  certiorari.  Upon  presentation  of 
such  petition,  the  justice  or  court  may  allow  a 
writ  of  certiorari  directed  to  the  board  of  ap- 
peals to  review  such  decision  of  the  board  of 
appeals  and  shall  prescribe  therein  the  time 
within  which  a  return  thereto  must  be  made  and 
served  upon  the  relator  or  his  attorney,  which 
shall  not  be  less  than  ten  days  and  may  be  ex- 
tended by  the  court  or  a  justice  thereof.  Such 
writ  shall  be  returnable  to  a  special  term  of  the 
supreme  court  of  the  judicial  district  in  which 
the  property  affected,  or  a  portion  thereof,  is 
situated.  The  allowance  of  the  writ  shall  not 
stay  proceedings  upon  the  decision  appealed 
from,  but  the  court  may,  on  application,  on 
notice  to  the  board  and  on  due  cause  shown, 
grant  a  restraining  order. 

3.  Return  to  writ.  The  board  of  appeals 
shall  not  be  required  to  return  the  original  pa- 
pers acted  upon  by  it,  but  it  shall  be  sufficient 
to  return  certified  or  sworn  copies  thereof  or  of 
such  portions  thereof  as  may  be  called  for  by 
such  writ.  The  return  must  concisely  set  forth 
such  other  facts  as  may  be  pertinent  and  ma- 
terial to  show  the  grounds  of  the  decision  ap- 
pealed from  and  must  be  verified. 

4.  Proceedings  upon  return.  If,  upon  the 
hearing,  it  shall  appear  ^o  the  court  that  testi- 
mony is  necessary  for  the  proper  disposition  of 
the  matter,  it  may  take  evidence  or  appoint  a 
referee  to  take  such  evidence  as  it  may  direct 
and  report  the  same  to  the  court  with  his  find- 
ings of  fact  and  conclusions  of  law,  which  shall 
constitute  a  part  of  the  proceedings  upon  which 
the  determination  of  the  court  shall  be  made. 
The  court  may  reverse  or  affirm,  wholly  or  part- 
ly or  may  modify  the  decision  brought  up  for 
review. 

5.  Costs.  Costs  shall  not  be  allowed  against 
the  board,  unless  it  shall  appear  to  the  court 
that  it  acted  with  gross  negligence  or  in  bad 
faith  or  with  malice  in  making  the  decision  ap- 
pealed from. 

6.  Preferences.  All  issues  in  any  proceed- 
ings under  this  section  shall  have  preference 
over  all  other  civil  actions  and  proceedings.   • 

§83.  Amendments,  alterations  and  changes 
in  district  lines.  The  common  council  may  from 
time  to  time  on  its  own  motion  or  on  petition, 


after  public  notice  and  hearing,  amend,  supple- 
ment or  change  the  regulations  and  districts  es- 
tablished under  any  ordinance  adopted  pur- 
suant to  paragraphs  twenty-four  and  twenty- 
iive  of  section  twenty  of  this  chapter.  When- 
ever the  owners  of  fifty  per  centum  or  more  of 
the  frontage  in  any  district  or  part  thereof  shall 
present  a  petition  duly  signed  and  acknowledged 
to  the  common  council  requesting  an  amend- 
ment, supplement,  change  or  repeal  of  the  reg- 
ulations prescribed  for  such  district  or  part 
thereof,  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  council  to 
vote  upon  said  petition  within  ninety  days  after 
the  filing  of  the  same  by  the  petitioners  with 
the  secretary  of  the  council.  If,  however,  a 
protest  against  such  amendment,  supplement  or 
change  be  presented,  duly  signed  and  acknowl- 
edged by  the  owners  of  twenty  per  centum  or 
more  of  any  frontage  proposed  to  be  altered,  or 
by  the  owners  of  twenty  per  centum  of  the 
frontage  immediately  in  the  rear  thereof,  or  by 
the  owners  of  twenty  per  centum  of  the  front- 
age directly  opposite  the  frontage  proposed  to 
be  altered,  such  amendment  shall  not  be  passed 
except  by  the  unanimous  vote  of  the  council." 

Article   5-A  of   the   general   city  law  of  the 
state  of  New  York,  in  effect  May  12,  1920. 

VIII.       OPINIONS   OF   THE  COURTS 
Scope  of  the  Police  Power 

City    of   Rochester   v.   West,    164   N.   Y.    510 

(1900).  _ 
Cusack  V.  City  of  Chicago,  267  111.  344;  U.  S. 

Supreme  Court,    242  U.    S.   526    (Jan.    15, 

1917)- 
Slaughter-House  Cases,  16  Wall.  36. 
Barbier  v.  Connolly,  113  U.  S.  27 
Reinman  v.  Little  Rock,  237  U.  S.  171 
People  ex  rel.  Busching  v.  Ericsson  (1914),  263 

111.  368,  105  N.  E.  31S,  L.  R.  A.  191S  D 

607 
People  ex   rel.   Keller  v.  Village  of  Oak   Park 

(1915),  266  111.  365,  107  N.  E.  636 
City  of  Spokane  v.  Camp,   Supreme  Court  of 

Washington,  October  15,  1908,  97  Pac.  Rep. 

770 
People  ex  rel.  Kemp  v.  D'Oench,  iii  N.  Y.  359 

(1888). 
Tenement  House  Dept.  v.  Moeschen,  179  N.  Y. 

32s  (1904) 
Gundling  v.  Chicago,  177  U.  S.  183,  188 
Nahser  v.  City  of  Chicago,  271  111.  288,  L.  R.  A. 

(1916),  95 
Spann  v.  City  of  Dallas,  189  S.  W.  999 
In  the  Matter  of  the  Application  of  Richard 

_  Russell,  158  N.  Y.  Supp.  162  (1916) 
Quintini  v.  City  of  Bay  St.  Louis,  64  Miss.  483, 

I  South  625,  60  Am.  Rep.  62 
Noble  State  Bank  v.  Haskell,  31  Sup.  Ct.  Rep. 

186  (U.  S.  Supreme  Ct.)   1911 
People  V.  Wineburg  Adv.  Co.,  195  N.  Y.  126 
Haller  Sign  Works  v.  Phvsical  Culture  Training 

School,  249  111.,  436,  34  L.  R.  A.   (N.  S.) 

Gunning  Advertising  Co.  v.  City  of  St.  Louis, 
235  Mo.  99,  137  S.  W.  929 


ZONING 


337 


City  of  St.  Louis  v.  Dorr,  145  Mo.  466,  42  L. 
R.  A.  686 

Munn  V.  Illinois,  94  U.  S.  113,  132 

Eubank  v.  Richmond,  no  Va.  749,  67  S.  E.  376 

Romar  Realty  Co.  v.  Board  of  Commissioners 

of  the   Borough   of   Haddonfield,   Supreme 

Court,  New  Jersey,  filed  June  22,  1921 
Sherman,  et  al.  v.  Shevitz,  et  al.,  Circuit  Court, 

Wayne     County,     Michigan,     No.     67777 

(1919) 
Grant  of  the  Police  Power  by  the  Leg- 
islature to  the  City 
City  of  Chicago  v.  Stratton,  162  111.  494,  35  L. 

R.  A.  84 
City  of  Olympia  v.  Mann,  i  Wash.  389 
Mount  Vernon  First  National  Bank  v.  Sarlls, 

129  Ind.  201,  13  L.  R.  A.  481 
Commonwealth  v.  Roberts,  155  Mass.  281 
Health  Department  v.  Rector,  etc.,  145  N.  Y. 

32  (1895) 
People  ex  rel.  Friend  v.  Chicago,  261  111.  16 
State  V.  Johnson,  114  N.  C.  846 
Clements   v.   McCabe,   et  al..   Supreme  Court, 

Michigan,  177  N.  W.  R.  722  (1920) 
People  ex  rel.  Lincoln  Ice  Co.  v.  City  of  Chi- 
cago,  Supreme   Court  of   Illinois,   October 

28,  1913,  260  111.  150 
Coyne   v.   Prichard,   Supreme   Court,   Pennsyl- 
vania,  Western   District,   filed   January    3, 

1922 
Spann  v.  City  of  Dallas,  et  al.,  Dallas  County, 

Fifth  District,  Dallas,  Texas,  November  2, 

1921 
Osborne,   Building  Inspector,  v.  Grauel,  Court 

of   Appeals,   Maryland,    filed    February    5, 

1920 
Blakeslee,  Inc.  v.  Mayor,  et  al,  Jersey  City,  N. 

J.,  112  Atlantic  Rep.  593.  (March  31,  1921) 
City  of  St.   Louis  v.   Evraiff,   et   al.,    Supreme 

Court  of  Missouri,  Division  No.  2,  #22412, 

October  Term,  1921 

Eminent  Domain  Not  Applicable  to 
Zoning 

Sanitary  District  of  Chicago  v.  Chicago  and  A. 

R.  Co.,  Supreme  Court  of  111.,  February  17, 

1915,  108  N.  E.  Rep.  312 
Forster  v.  Scott,_i36  N.  Y.  577 
Matter  of  opening  Furman   Street,    17  Wend. 

(N.  Y.),  649 
Matter  of  opening  Rogers  Avenue,  29  Abb.  N. 

C.  (N.  Y.),  361 
Edwards  v.  Bruorton,  184  Mass.  529 
Matter  of  Clinton  Ave.,  57  App.  Div.  166  (N. 

People  ex  rel.  Dilzer  v.  Calder,  89  (N.  Y.)  App. 

Div.  503   (1903) 
St.  Louis  V.  Hill,  116  Mo.  527  (1893) 
Attornev  General  v.  Williams,   174  Mass.  476, 

SS  N.  E.  77,  47  R.  A.  314  (1899) 
Town  of  Windsor  v.  Whitney,  et  al,  95  Conn. 

Rep.  357  (1920) 

Constitutionality  of  Zoning 

Welch  V.  Swasey,  193  Mass.  364;  affirmed  214 
U.  S.  91 


Cochran  v.  Preston,  108  Md.  220,  23  L.  R.  A. 
(N.  S.)   1163 

Ex  Parte  Quong  Wo,  161  Cal.  20,  118  Pac.  714 

In  re  Montgomery,  163  Cal.  457,  Ann.  Cas. 
1914  A,  130,  125  Pac.  1070 

Ex  Parte  Hadacheck,  165  Cal.  416,  L.  R.  A. 
1916  B  1248 

Hadacheck  v.  Sebastian,  239  U.  S.  394 

State  ex  rel.  Lachtman  v.  Houghton,  158  N.  W. 
Rep.  1017.  A  valuable  discussion  pf  this 
and  other  cases  by  R.  S.  Wiggin  in  Minne- 
sota Law  Review,  February,  1917 

Opinion  of  the  Justices,  Mass.  House  Doc.  No. 
1774  (1920),  127  N.  E.  R.  525  {1920) 

State  of  Ohio  ex  rel.  Morris  v.  Osborn,  April 
30,  1920,  22  N.  P.  (N.  S.)  549;  The  Ohio 
Law  Reporter,  Vol.  18,  No.  22,  August  23, 
1920 

Lincoln  Trust  Company  v.  Williams  Building 
Corporation,  169  N.  Y.  Supp.  1045;  183 
App.  Div.  225;  decided  July  7,  1920.  Court 
of  Appeals,  229  N.  Y.  313,  Advance  Sheets 
No.  1024 

Cliffside  Park  Realty  Co.  v.  Borough  of  CliflF- 
side  Park,  Supreme  Court,  New  Jersey, 
filed  February  18,  1921,  Enoch  L.  Johnson, 
Clerk,  Trenton,  N.  J.;  affirmed  Court  of 
Errors  and  Appeals,  New  Jersey,  filed  June 
20,  1921,  Thomas  F.  Martin,  Clerk 

Handy  v.  Village  of  South  Orange,  et  al.,  Su- 
preme Court,  New  Jersey  (Newark),  Feb- 
ruary 22,  1922 

Pera  v.  Village  of  Shorewood,  Circuit  Court, 
Milwaukee,  Wisconsin,  July  28,  1921 

Village  of  South  Orange  v.  Heller,  Chancery 
Court,  New  Jersey,  May,  1921 

Procedure  and  Board  of  Appeals 

Aaderson   v.   Steinway   165   N.   Y.   Supp.  608; 

178  App.  Div.  507;  221  N.  Y.  639  (1917) 
Whitridge,  et  al.  v.  Park,  Calestock,  et  al.,  100 

Misc.  367;  165  N.  Y.  Supp.  640;  179  App. 

Div.  884  (1917) 
People  ex  rel.  Flegenheimer  v.  Leo,  New  York 

Law  Journal,  May  8,  1918;  186  App.  Div. 

893   (1918) 
People  ex  rel.  New  York  Central  R.  R.  ■:;.  Leo, 

105  Misc.  372  (1918) 
People  ex  rel.  Beinert  v.  Miller,  100  Misc.  Rep. 

318;  165  N.  Y.  Supp.  602;  188  App.  Div. 

113  (1919) 
People  ex  rel.  Sondern  v.  Walsh,  108  Misc.  193; 

also  196  (1919) 
People  ex  rel.  McAvoy  v.  Leo,  et  al.,  109  Misc. 

255  (1919) 

People  ex  rel.  Cotton  v.  Leo,  no  Misc.  519; 
194  App.  Div.  921  (1920) 

People  ex  rel.  Healy  v.  Leo,  et  al.,  194  App. 
Div.  973  (1920) 

Walsh  V.  Cusack  Co.,  et  al.,  New  York  Su- 
preme Court,  New  York  Law  Journal, 
March  3,  1921,  p.  1878 

People  ex  rel.  Ruth  v.  Leo,  et  al..  New  York 
Supreme    Court,    Special   Term,   Part   VI, 


338 


NATIONAL  MUNICIPAL  REVIEW  SUPPLEMENT 


New  York  Law  Journal,  March  29,  1921, 

p.  219s;  197  App.  Div.  942  (1921) 
Biggs   V.   Stein  way   &   Sons,    182   N.   Y.  Supp. 

loi;    191   App.  Div.  526;   229  N.  Y.   320 

(1920) 
People   ex   rel.   Helvetia   Realty  Co.,  et  al.,  v. 

Leo,  et  al.,  183  N.  Y.  Supp.  37;  195  App. 

Div.  887;  231  N.  Y.  Ill  (1921) 
People  ex  rel.  Facey  v.  Leo,  no  Misc.  516;  193 

App.  Div.  910;  230  N.  Y.  602  (1921) 
People  ex  rel.  Sheldon  v.  Board  of  Appeals,  115 

Misc.    449;    affirmed     Appellate    Division, 

New  York  Law  Journal,  February  25,  1922, 

p.  1849 

Lack  of  Board  of  Appeals 

State  of  Nebraska  ex  rel.  Westminister  Pres- 
byterian Church  of  Omaha  v.  Edgecomb, 
Chief  Engineer,  District  Court  of  Douglas 
County,  Nebraska,  Doc.  185,  No.  261,  Sep- 
tember I,  1921 


IX.       ENABLING  ACTS 

California,  1917,  chapter  734. 

Connecticut,  192 1. 

Iowa,  1917,  chapter  138. 

Illinois,  June  28,  1919. 

Illinois,  June  28,  1921. 

Indiana,  1921,  chapter  225. 

Kansas,  1921,  chapter  100. 

Louisiana,  June  18,  1918. 

Massachusetts,  1898,  chapter  452. 

Massachusetts,  1904,  chapter  333. 

Massachusetts,  1920,  chapter  601. 

Michigan,  May,  192 1. 

Minnesota,  1915,  chapter  128. 

Minnesota,  1921,  chapter  217. 

Missouri,  March  31  and  April  i,  1921. 

Nebraska,  192 1. 

New  Jersey,  1917,  chapter  54. 

New  Jersey,  1918,  chapter  146. 

New  Jersey,  1920,  chapter  240. 

New  Jersey,  1921,  chapter  82. 

New  Jersey,  192 1,  chapter  276. 

New  York,  charter  of  city  of  New 
York,  Sections  242a-242b;  718-719. 

New  York,  1917,  chapter  483,  Gen- 
eral City  Law. 

New  York,  charter  of  Rochester,  Laws 
1917,  chapter  505. 

New  York,  192 1,  chapter  464  Village 
Law. 

Ohio,  February  13,  1920. 


Oregon,  1919,  chapter  300. 
Pennsylvania,  May  11,  1915. 
Pennsylvania,  June  21,  1919. 
Pennsylvania,  June  25  ,1919. 
Pennsylvania,  May  11,  1921. 
Rhode  Island,  192 1,  chapter  2069. 
South  Carolina,  March  4,  192 1. 
Tennessee,  192 1,  chapter  165. 
Texas — charter  of  the  city  of  Dallas, 

1920. 
Texas,  1921,  chapter  87. 
U.  S.  Congress  for  Washington,  March 

I,  1920. 
Wisconsin,  1913,  chapters  457  and  743. 
Wisconsin,  1917,  chapter  404. 
Wisconsin,  1919,  chapter  691. 
Wisconsin,  192 1. 

X.       THE  BIBLIOGRAPHY  OF  ZONING 

BY    THEODORA    KIMBALL^ 

Within  the  last  ten  years  in  this 
country  there  have  appeared  a  consid- 
erable number  of  publications  relating 
to  zoning.  The  earliest  of  these  dealt 
largely  with  European  practice  as  a 
suggestion  or  guide  for  proposals  in 
the  United  States.  As  our  cities  draft- 
ed their  own  zoning  ordinances,  and 
succeeded  in  getting  them  adopted,  a 
steady  and  increasing  stream  of  re- 
ports and  descriptive  articles  has  come 
forth,  valuable  to  other  cities  as  a  rec- 
ord of  experience.  In  addition,  mem- 
bers of  the  American  City  Planning 
Institute,  especially  Messrs.  Bartholo- 
mew, Bassett,  Cheney,  Ford,  Swan, 
Whitten,  and  Williams,  have  summar- 
ized the  results  of  their  work  in  the 
zoning  field.  A  small  selection  from 
all  the  above-mentioned  groups  of  pub- 
lications is  given  below. 

A  full  bibliography  of  American  ref- 
erences on  zoning  would  comprise  a 
large  number  of  additional  titles,  in- 
cluding reports  of  local  progress,  con- 
densations of  the  same  paper  in  sev- 
eral periodicals,  and  publications  with 
little  or  no  explanatory  text,  of  maps 


ZONING 


339 


and  ordinances,  drafted  or  enacted. 
Some  account  of  these  latter  will  be 
found  by  consulting  the  list  of  cities 
where  zoning  has  been  adopted,  given 
elsewhere  in  this  pamphlet.  In  the 
bibliography  for  the  earlier  edition  of 
the  pamphlet  (1920),  a  number  of 
local  publications  not  repeated  here 
were  included. 

This  present  bibliography  has  been 
checked  by  Mr.  Bassett  with  the  files 
of  the  Zoning  Committee  of  New  York 
and  has  been  selected  from  all  publica- 
tions received  both  at  the  Harvardi 
School  of  Landscape  Architecture  and 
the  Zoning  Committee's  office  up  to 
March  16,  1922. 

iLibrarian,  School  of  Landscape  Architecture 
at  Harvard  University;  Honorary  Librarian, 
American  City  Planning  Institute. 

Selected  References  on  Zoning 

In  Books,  Reports,  and  Pamphlets 

American   Civic   Association.     Zoning,   as   an 
element   in   city   planning,  and  for  protec- 
tion of  property  values,  public  safety,  and 
public  health,  by  Lawson  Purdy,  Harland 
Bartholomew,  Edward  M.  Bassett,  Andrew 
Wright  Crawford,  Herbert  S.  Swan.    Wash- 
ington, June,  1920.     48  p.  (Ser.  H,  no.  15, 
June  30,  1920). 
Atlanta,    Ga.    City    Planning    Commission. 
The  Atlanta  zone  plan:  report  outlining  a 
tentative  zone  plan  for  Atlanta,  by  Robert 
H.    Whitten,    Consultant.      Atlanta,    1922. 
18  p.  illus.  photos,   diagrams,  map.     [Ex- 
cellent statement  of  advantages  of  zoning.] 
Bassett,   Edward  M.     The  Board  of  Appeals 
in    zoning.      New   York,   Pub.    by   Zoning 
Committee  of  New  York  [1921].   25  p. 

.     Zoning.     (Supplement  to  National 

Municipal  Review,  May,  1920,  v.  9,  no.  5, 
p.    315-341.)     Revised    edition    1922.     [A 
general  treatise  on  the  subject,  containing 
a  statement  of  principles,  program  of  action, 
and   legal    basis,   with   bibliography   by   T. 
Kimball.] 
Cheney,  Charles  Henry.     Procedure  for  zon- 
ing or  districting  of  cities.     San  Francisco, 
California    Conference    on    City    Planning, 
Sept.,  1917.    IS  p.  plans.     (Bulletin  No.  2). 
Chicago,  III.     Citizens'  Zone  Plan  Conference, 
Report  of  Proceedings.    Dec.  16,  1919.    94 
p.      (Issued  by  Union  League  Club,  Chi- 
cago.) 
Civic  Club  of  Allegheny  County.  _  Munici- 
pal Planning  Committee.  Districting  and 


zoning;  what  it  is;  why  Pittsburgh  should 
do  it.    Jan.  i,  1918.     7  P-  iHus.  plans. 
Cleveland.      City    Plan    Commission.      The 
Cleveland   zone   plan;    report   to   the  City 
Plan   Commission  outlining  tentative  zone 
plan  for  Cleveland,  by  Robert  H.  Whitten 
and    Frank   R.   Walker.     Cleveland,    1921. 
23  p.  illus.  plans,  diagrams.     [An  effective 
"selling-campaign"  document.] 
Davis,  Earl  H.,  compiler.     Zoning.     [A  com- 
pilation showing  the  advance  of  the  move- 
ment  in   the   United   States.]      St.   Louis, 
July,  1917.     [38  p.]  plans.    (St.  Louis  Pub- 
lic  Library   Monthly   Bulletin,   n.  s.  v.    15, 
no.  7). 
Detroit,  Mich.     City  Plan   Commission.     A 
building    zone    plan    for    Detroit.      Nov., 
1919.     18  p.  illus.     T.  Glenn  Phillips  and 
Harland  Bartholomew,  consultants. 
Ford,  George  B.     Building  zones;  a  handbook 
of  restrictions  on  the  height,  area  and  use 
of  buildings,  with  especial  reference  to  New 
York  City.    New  York,  Lawyats  Mortgage 
Co.      [1917.]      36p.+plans.    illus.      [Con- 
tains digest  of  cases:   Constitutionality  of 
the  zone  plan,  by  H.  S.  Swan.] 
Lewis,  Nelson  P.     The  planning  of  the  mod- 
ern city.    New  York,  Wiley  and  Sons,  1916. 
p.   260-285:    Restrictions,   illus.  plan.    [Re- 
lates largely  to  building  height  regulation 
and  districting.] 
McBain,   Howard   Lee.     American   city   prog- 
ress  and   the   law.     New  York,   Columbia 
University   Press,    1918.     p.   92-123:    City 
planning.  Building  heights  and  zoning. 
National    Conference    on    City    Planning. 

(60    State   St.,    Boston.)     Proceedings 

4th,  1912,  p.  173-191:  The  control  of 
municipal  development  by  the  ''Zone  sys- 
tem" and  its  application  in  the  United 
States,  by  B.  Antrim  Haldeman.  With 
discussion.  Condensed  in  American  City, 
Sept.,  1912. 

6th,  1914,  p.  92-132:  Protecting  resi- 
dential districts,  by  Lawrence  Veiller.  With 
discussion.  Also  published  separately  by 
National  Housing  Association. 

8th,   1916,  p.   147-176:   Districting  by 

municipal  regulation,  by  Lawrence  Veiller. 
With  discussion. 

9th,  1917,  p.  168-227,  289-298:  Dis- 
tricting and  zoning  of  cities.  Introductory 
remarks,  by  Henry  D.  Ashley. — Districting 
and  zoning  of  cities,  by  Lawson  Purdy.— 
Districting  progress  and  procedure  in  Cali- 
fornia, by  Charles  Henry  Cheney. — Build- 
ing heights  in  Washington,  D.  C,  by  Rich- 
ard B.  Watrous.  —  Constitutional  limita- 
tions on  city  planning  powers,  by  Edward 
M.  Bassett.  Also  published  separately  by 
City  of  New  York. 

loth,   1918,  p.   34-71:   The  zoning  of 

residence  sections,  by  Robert  H.  Whitten. 
— Industrial  zoning  in  practice,  by  Herbert 
S.  Swan.  With  discussion.  Mr.  Swan's 
paper  was  condensed  in  American  City, 
July,  1918. 


340 


NATIONAL  MUNICIPAL  REVIEW  SUPPLEMENT 


nth,    1919,    p.    162-185.      Zoning    in 

practice,  by  Charles  H.  Cheney.  [Experi- 
ence in  Pacific  Coast  cities.] 

I2th,   1920,  p.   133-153-     Zoning  from 

the  viewpoint  of  the  lender  on  real  estate 
mortgages,  by  W.  L.  Ulmer. — The  need  of 
zoning  in  Cincinnati,  by  Bleecker  Mar- 
quette.— Recent  court  decisions  on  zoning, 
by  Alfred  Bettman. 

13th,  1921,  p.  22-48.    Zoning  and  liv- 
ing  conditions,   by  Robert   H.   Whitten. — 
The  effect  of  zoning  upon  living  conditions, 
by  Herbert  S.  Swan. — How  zoning  affects 
living  conditions,  by  George  B.  Ford.    Dis- 
cussion p.  59-69,  151-154. 
National    Conference    on    Housing.      (105 
East  22d  St.,  New  York)   Proceedings,  3d, 
1913^   P-    54-62,    143-157:    Districted   resi- 
dential and   industrial  districts  in  German 
cities,   by   Frank   Backus  Williams.     With 
discussion. 
New    York    (City).     Heights    of    Buildings 
Commission.  Report  of  the  heights  of  build- 
ings commission  to  the  committee  on  the 
height,  size  and  arrangement  of  buildings  of 
the  Board  of  Estimate  and  Apportionment 
of  the  City  of  New  York.     Dec.  23,  191 3. 
New  York,  1 91 3.     295  p.  illus.    Edward  _M. 
Bassett,    chairman,    Lawson    Purdy,    vice- 
chairman,  George  B.  Ford  and  R.  H.  Whit- 
ten, consultants.     [Appendices  include:  The 
German  zone  building  regulations,  by  F.  B. 
Williams. — Building   restrictions  in   various 
cities,  by  H.  S.  Swan.] 
New  York  (City).     Commission  on  Building 
Districts    and    Restrictions.     Final    re- 
port, June  2,   1916.     (Also  Supplementary 
ed..  The  City  Club  of  New  York.)     City  of 
New  York,  Board  of  Estimate  and  Appor- 
tionment,   Committee    on    the    City    Plan, 
1916.      100    p.    illus.    plans.      Edward   M. 
Bassett,  chairman  of  the  commission,  Law- 
son  Purdy,  vice-chairman,  George  B.  Ford 
and  R.  H.  Whitten,  consultants.    Tentative 
report  was  issued  March   10,   1916.     [The 
final   report   is   perhaps  the  most  compre- 
hensive treatise  on  zoning  now  in  print,  re- 
ferring to  both  European  and  initial  Amer- 
ican practice.    It  contains  many  arguments 
in  favor  of  zoning.] 
Newark,  N.  J.     City  Plan  Commission.     En- 
couraging proper  city  growth  through  build- 
ing  districts.     Reprinted   from   a    series  of 
articles  published   in   the  Newark  Sunday 
Call,  beginning  Feb.  4,  1917.     (13  P-)  iHus. 
plan. 
Portland,  Ore.     City  Planning  Commission. 
Zoning  and  city  planning  for  Portland,  Ore- 
gon.    June,    1919.      55  p.    illus.     (Bulletin 
No.    i).     References   on   zoning   and    city 
planning,  p.  55. 

Proposed  building  zone  for  the 
city  of  Portland,  Oregon,  as  tentatively 
recommended  by  the  Neighborhood  Prop- 
erty Owners  Meetings  and  the  City  Plan- 
ning Commission,  Oct.  25,  1919.  '  32  p. 
(Bulletin  No.  4.)     C.  H.  Cheney,  consult- 


St. 


ant.  [Report  contains  section:  The  legality 
of  zoning,  by  Herbert  S.  Swan,  p.  15-19.] 
Louis.  City  Plan  Commission.  Prelimi- 
nary statement  on  districting;  a  reasonable 
exercise  of  the  police  power  for  health, 
safety   and    general    welfare.      July,    1916. 

3P-  . 
.    Zoning  for  St.  Louis;  a  fundamental 

part  of  the  city  plan,  Jan.,    1918.      30  p. 

illus.     Harland  Bartholomew,  consultant. 

.     Height,  area  and  use  districts  and 

restrictions.    May,  191 8.    Folio  of  maps. 

.     The  zone  plan.    June,  1919.     82  p. 

illus.  plans.  [Contains  section  of  "expert 
testimony"  giving  arguments  in  favor  of 
zoning  from  hygienic,  economic,  etc.,  points 
of  view.]  Harland  Bartholomew,  consult- 
ant. 

Swan,  Herbert  S.  The  law  of  zoning;  a  re- 
view of  the  constitutionality  of  zoning  reg- 
ulations which  control  buildings  in  accord- 
ance with  a  general  plan  of  municipal  de- 
velopment. Supplement  to  National  Mu- 
nicipal Review,  Oct.,  1921,  v.  10,  p.  519- 
536. 

Veiller,  Lawrence.  Zoning.  In  his  A  model 
housing  law,  revised  edition,  1920,  p.  375- 
381.  [Legislation  suggested  in  connection 
with  the  housing  law.] 

Williams,  Frank  Backus.  The  zoning  or  dis- 
tricting system  in  its  relation  to  housing. 
Massachusetts  Civic  League  (3  Joy  St., 
Boston)     [1915.]     8  p. 

hi  Periodicals 

American  Architect  (243  West  39th  St.,  New 
York),  Nov.  13,  1918,  vol.  114,  p.  5?2-594- 
The  non-conforming  building  in  zoning,  by 
Herbert  S.  Swan. 

American  City  (Tribune  Bldg.,  New  York), 
Dec,  191 3,  vol.  9,  p.  5x7-518.  The  street 
as  the  basis  of  districting,  by  F.  B.  Wil- 
liams. 

,  Apr.,  1916,  vol.  14,  p.  328-333-  illus. 

City  planning  by  coercion  or  legislation,  by 
George  B.  Ford. 

,  Aug.,  1916,  vol._i5,  p.  183-184.    The 

new  Berkeley  zone  ordinance,  by  Charles  H. 
Cheney. 

,  Oct.,  1917.  vol.  17,  p.  357.    The  new 

California  State  Zoning  Act,  by  Charies  H. 
Cheney. 

-,  July,  1918,  vol.  19,  p.  3-6.  illus.  plan. 


Zoning  as  a  war-time  measure,  by  Charles 
H.  Cheney. 

,  Aug.,  1918,  vol.  19,  p.  127-130.  illus. 

The  St.  Louis  zoning  ordinance,  by  Harland 
Bartholomew. 

July,  1919,  vol.  21,  p.  1-3.  illus. 
Comprehensive  zone  ordinance  adopted  by 
Alameda,  by  Charles  _E.  Hewes.  [An  up- 
to-date  ordinance  typical  of  recent  zoning 
on  Pacific  Coast.] 

,  Nov.,  1919,  vol.  21,  p.  458-460.    The 

legality  of  zoning  regulations,   by  Herbert 
S.  Swan. 

-,  April,_  1920,  v.  22,  p.  339-344;  ^''"^• 
Does  your  city  keep  its  gas  range  in  the 


ZONING 


341 


parlor  and  its  piano  in  the  kitchen?  How 
a  zoning  law,  administered  at  norninal  ex- 
pense, will  promote  orderliness  in  com- 
munity development,  help  real  estate  and 
benefit  the  entire  city,  by  Herbert  S.  Swan. 

,  Aug.,  1920,  V.  23,  p.  140-142.    The 

zoning  of  apartment  and  tenement  houses. 
An  important  legal  decision  [East  Cleve- 
land] which  will  help  to  preserve  our  Amer- 
ican cities  as  cities  of  homes,  by  Robert  H. 
Whitten. 

,  Mar.,  1921,  v.  24,  p.  287,  289.  Effi- 
cient industry  and  wholesome  housing  true 
aims  of  zoning,  by  Thomas  Adams.  [Zon- 
ing placed  in  its  broad  relations  to  city  de- 
velopment.] 

-,  April,  1921,  V.  24,  p.  383-386.  Sim- 
plifying zoning.  Exemplified  in  the  com- 
pleted ordinances  for  Mansfield,  Ohio,  and 
East  Orange,  N.  J.,  by  George  B.  Ford. 

Dec,  1921,  V.  25,  p.  456-458.  The 
remarkable  spread  of  zoning  in  American 
cities,  prepared  by  American  City  Bureau. 
[Lists  of  cities  with  ordinances  enacted  or 
in  preparation.] 

,  Mar.,   1922,  V.  26,  p.  230.     Interim 

zoning,  with  suggestions  for  ordinances,  by 
Edward  M.  Bassett. 

American  Society  of  Civil  Engineers  Pro- 
ceedings, Feb.,  1922,  v.  48,  no.  2,  p.  213- 
218.  The  relation  of  zoning  to  the  housing 
problem,  by  B.  Antrim  Haldeman. 

Architectural  Forum.     (85   Water   St.,   Bos- 
ton.)    Oct.,   1921,  v.  35,  p.   119-124.  illus. 
diagrams.     New  York's  new  architecture,  the 
effect  of  the  zoning  law  on  high  buildings, 
by  Aymar  Embury,  II. 

,  Oct.,   1921,  v.  35,  p.  131-134-  illus. 

Zoning  and  the  architecture  of  high  build- 
ings, by  Irving  K.  Pond. 

Architectural  Record.  (115  W.  40th  St., 
New  York.)  Sept.,  1920,  v.  48,  p.  193- 
217.  illus.  plans.  The  New  York  zoning 
resolution  and  its  influence  upon  design,  by 
John  Taylor  Boyd,  Jr. 

Baltimore  Municipal  Journal.  Series  of  art- 
icles by  JefTerson  C.  Grinnalds,  beginning 
Oct.  8,  1920,  V.  8,  no.  19,  p.  4-5.  What  is 
Zoning.''    Why  should  we  have  it.'' 

National  Municipal  Review  (National  Muni- 
cipal League),  May,  1917,  v.  7,  p.  3?5-336. 
Building  Zone  Plan  of  New  York  City,  by 
R.  H.  Whitten. 

May,  1918,  vol.  7,  p.  244-254.  How 
zoning  works  in  New  York,  by  Herbert  S. 
Swan. 

-,  May,  1919,  vol.  8,  p.  226-229.  The 
next  problem  in  city  zoning,  by  Francis  P. 
Sloan.  [Refers  to  already  existing  stores 
and  factories  in  newly  created  residential 
zones.] 

,  Sept.,  1919,  vol.  8,  p.  501-502.     St. 

Louis  zoning  law  under  fire,  by  Louis  F. 
Budenz. 

-,  Jan.,  1920,  vol.  9,  p.  31-43.  Zoning 
in  practice,  by  Charles  H.  Cheney.     Paper 


at  nth  National  Conference  on  City  Plan- 
ning, Buffalo,  1919. 

National  Real  Est.ate  Journal  (139  North 
Clark  St.,  Chicago),  Nov.,  1919,  vol.  20, 
no.  4,  p.  21-24.  illus.  How  zoning  stand- 
ardizes values,  by  Charles  H.  Cheney. 

,  Jan.  5,  1920,  vol.  21,  no.  I,  p.  25-28. 

illus.  Chicago  zoning  plan  conference;  a 
two  days'  drive  to  create  popular  interest 
and  approval,  touches  many  phases  of  the 
subject. 

,  Mar.  I,  1920,  vol.  21,  no.  5,  p.  19-22. 

Zoning  experiences  in  many  cities,  by  Har- 
land  Bartholomew. 

,  Feb.  14,  1921,  V.  22,  p.  16-17.    The 

need  and  nature  of  city  zoning;  an  address 
delivered  at  the  Fourth  Annual  Convention 
of  the  Real  Estate  Association  of  Illinois, 
by  Charles  B.  Ball. 

-,  Sept.  26,  1921,  V.  22,  no.  20,  p.  41- 


45.  Zoning  is  so  logical  and  reasonable 
that  it  must  come  sooner  or  later  —  it  is 
inevitable.  Paper  and  discussion  at  14th 
Annual  Convention  of  National  Associa- 
tion of  Real  Estate  Boards,  by  George  B. 
Ford. 

,  Oct.  ID,  1921,  V.  22,  p.  36-39.  Zon- 
ing. The  realtor's  part  in  planning  "the 
city  efficient,"  out  of  which  grows  "the 
city  beautiful."  Paper  at  14th  Annual 
Convention  of  National  Association  of  Real 
Estate  Boards,  by  J.  C.  Nichols. 

,  Jan.  2,   1922,  V.  23,  p.  26.     Zoning 

vs.  private  restrictions,  by  Edward  M.  Bas- 
sett.    [Prevention  of  blighted  districts.] 

Park  International,  July,  1920,  v.  i,  p.  56- 
59.  illus.  Zoning  in  the  location  of  public 
parks,  by  Harland  Bartholomew. 

(Philadelphia)  Realtor's  News,  Jan.,  1922, 
V.  3,  p.  5-6.  The  legal  view  of  zoning,  by 
E.  A.  Merrill.  [Legal  obstacles,  and  the 
test  of  a  good  ordinance.] 

Political  Science  Quarterly,  Dec,  1921,  v. 
36,  p.  617-641.  Law  making  by  property 
owners.  Shall  the  exercise  of  the  police 
power  be  made  to  depend  on  property 
owners?  By  Howard  Lee  McBain.  [In- 
cludes a  discussion  of  the  validity  of  clauses 
in  zoning  ordinances  requiring  the  consent 
of  property  owners.] 

Special  Libr.'Vries  (Special  Libraries  Associa- 
tion. 120  Peterborough  St.,  Boston),  Jan., 
1916,  vol.  7,  p.  2-7.  Bibliography  on  resi- 
dential and  industrial  districts  in  cities,  by 
H.  A.  Rider. 

Survey  (112  East  19th  St.,  New  York),  Mar. 
6,  1920,  vol.  43,  p.  675-680,  718.  illus.  Un- 
walled  towns,  by  Bruno  Lasker.  [Tend- 
encies towards  Social  segregation  to  be 
guarded  against  in  town  planning  and  zon- 
ing.] 

,  May  22,   1920,  V.  44,  p.   275-278. 

map,  plan.  Removing  social  barriers  by 
zoning,  by  Charles  H.  Cheney.  [A  reply 
to  Mr.  Lasker's  article  above.] 


Current  Publications  of  the  National  Municipal  League 


A  Model  City  Charter 
Pocket  Civic  Series 


1.  Modern  Principles  of  Polit- 
ical Reform. 

2.  The  Short  Ballot. 

3.  The  Story  of  the  City-Man- 
ager Plan, 

A  Model  State  Constitution 
Technical  Pamphlets  . 

1.  The  Assessment  of  Real  Es- 
tate. 

2.  Administrative  Consolida- 
tion in  State  Governments. 

3.  The  Coming  of  Centralized 
Purchasing  in  State  Govern- 
ments. 

4.  A  Correct  Public  Policy 
Toward  the  Street  Railway 
Problem. 

5.  Zoning. 


50  cents 


10  cents  each,  $5.00  per  hundred 

4.  Ramshackle     County     Gov- 
ernment. 

5.  Municipal  Undertakings. 

6.  Criminal  Justice — How  to 
Achieve  It. 

7.  Civil    Service     (The    Merit 
System.) 

.         .         .         .         .         25  cents 

25  cents  each,  $15.00  per  hundred 
6. 


7- 

If^   8. 


10. 

12. 


Employment      Standardiza- 
tion in  the  Public  Service. 

The  Presidential  Primary. 

The  Law  of  the  City  Plan. 

Administrative    Reorganiza- 
tion in  Illinois. 

Service   at   Cost   for   Street 
Railways. 

The  Law  of  Zoning. 

State  Parks  (illustrated.) 


i"^  The  Planning  of  Cities  and  Towns  in  the 

United  States  and  Canada  (illustrated)    .       .  50  cents 

Outlines  of  a  Model  Election  System    ...  25  cents 

The  Fate  of  the  Direct  Primary    .        .        .        .  25  cents 

Special  Assessments  for  Public  Improvement    .  25  cents 

The  National  Municipal  League  Series  of  Books 


1.  A  New  Municipal  Program. 
$2.60. 

2.  Experts    in     City    Govern- 
ment.    $2.60. 

3.  Municipal  Functions.    $2.60. 

4.  Town  Planning.     $2.85. 

5.  City  Planning.     $2.60. 

6.  Satellite  Cities,    $2.60. 

7.  The  Social  Center.    $2.60. 

8.  The  City  Manager.    $2.60. 


9.     City  Government  by   Com- 
mission.   $3.10. 

10.  Excess     Condemnation. 
$2.60. 

11.  The  Reg^ulation  of  Municip- 
al Utilities.     $2.60. 

12.  The   Initiative,   Referendum 
and  Recall.    $2.85. 

13.  Lower    Living    Costs    in 
Cities.    $2.60. 

14.  Woman's  Work  in  Munici- 
palities.   $2.60. 


NATIONAL  MUNICIPAL  REVIEW 

261  BROADWAY,  NEW  YORK 

Annual  Subscription $5.00 

Free  to  Members  of  National  Municipal  League 


RETURN  TO  the  circulation  desk  of  any 

University  of  California  Library 

or  to  the 

NORTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 
Bldg.  400,  Richmond  Field  Station 
University  of  California 
Richmond,  CA  94804-4698 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED   AFTER   7  DAYS 
2-month  loans  may  be  renewed  by  calling 

(510)642-6753 
1-year  loans  may  be  recharged  by  bringing  books 

to  NRLF 
Renewals    and    recharges    may    be    made    4    days 

prior  to  due  date 

DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 


JAN  011996 


20,000  (4/94) 


FOURTEEN  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 


This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 

Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


20Sep'55CT 


SEP^  4:19bt)  LU 


.!%kv 


REC'D  LD 


DEC  2  0  )yb] 


^^ 


sM 


' '  '  -'—  U  Uu 


^8 '64 -KM 


LD  21-100m-2,'55 
(B139s22)476 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


